On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 4:24 PM, =JeffH <jeff.hod...@kingsmountain.com> wrote:
>
> In terms of this question of whether the STS header field directive ABNF
> should be..
>
> 1)  directive         = token [ "=" ( token | quoted-string ) ]
>
> ..or..
>
> 2)  directive         = token [ "=" token ]
>
> ..I can see both sides of the argument.
>
> However, I've been thinking about it and grepping thru specs as well as
> firefox and chrome code, which has led me to think that from an overall
> (specification) consistency perspective, I'm leaning towards spec'g it with
> quoted-string in the ABNF (ie, as (1)). And has been pointed out in the
> discussion, it is sort of a moot point because the STS header field does not
> at this time make use of the quoted-string production, nor do we have on the
> table any extension directives that would do so.
>
> In going through the FF and Chrome code, I note that both of their STS
> header field parsing methods appear to be special-case and AFAICT don't make
> use of other, more general HTTP header field parsing routines that are
> available in both implementations, and that are used to parse other HTTP
> response header fields. These latter more general HTTP header field parsing
> routines appear to be used for processing various of the other HTTP response
> and request header fields (and they appear to handle quoted-string). But it
> isn't clear why they aren't used for STS. It also isn't clear how uniformly
> these parsing routines are used for the panoply of HTTP header fields --
> some other header fields appear to be special-cased as well (tho my c++ foo
> is wanting and the code is vast..). So yeah, it does seem messy.

It's definitely messy.

I don't think it matters much what we write in this document.  Even if
we spec quoted-string, I doubt many folks will implement it.  However,
we can deal with that problem when it comes time to add extension
values that actually used quoted-string.

Adam
_______________________________________________
websec mailing list
websec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/websec

Reply via email to