It seems we're not in agreement. We can repeat the same arguments over and over again, but it's not clear that would be productive.
Adam On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:00 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.resc...@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2011-12-30 10:13, Adam Barth wrote: >> >> Using quoted-string in the extension directive is the wrong thing to >> do. Because none of the actual directives use quoted-string, folks >> are likely to write parsers that don't handle all the complexities of >> quoted-string (which are legion). That means when we go to actually >> use quoted-string in a future directive, it won't actually work in >> many user agents. > > > Unless we clarify the syntax, allow q-s everywhere, and have test cases. > > >> On the other hand, if we spec the extension directives without >> quoted-string, future extensions will work even if folks mistakenly >> implement quote-string (because DQUOTE is forbidden in the extension >> syntax I suggested above, so we'll never trigger the mistaken >> quoted-string parsing code). Everyone lives a happy life. > > > Absolutely not. > > First of all, some implementations will parse q-s, because that's consistent > with other header fields. Also, not having q-s makes certain values > impossible to send, in which case you'll need to invent yet another escaping > syntax. > > >> Anyway, it's all somewhat of a moot point because the above will >> happen regardless of what we write in the spec. Even if we write >> quoted-string, when folks attempt to use these extension directives in >> the future, they'll find that they don't work and they'll update the >> syntax not to use quoted-string. > > > Why would they find that? Implementations can be fixed. > > Or is this argument based on the fact that you *currently* "own" one > implementation and claim it can't be fixed? That would be a very strange > thing to do in the context of an IETF WG trying to reach consensus. > > Best regards, Julian > > PS: I note that we are in violent agreement that the syntax should be the > same for all directives, predefined or extension. We just come to different > conclusions about what that syntax should be. _______________________________________________ websec mailing list websec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec
