On 05/17/2016 02:53 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> (Note that HT is a CTL, right, so it appears to be doubly excluded, no?)
> CHAR is US-ASCII 0-127.
I noticed that too... It seems odd, but it's water under the bridge now,
I guess.
> The characters missing above from tchar are '"', '(', ')',
Based on Jason's question...
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:31 PM, William A Rowe Jr
wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Julian Reschke
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-05-17 19:01, Graham Leggett wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr
On 05/17/2016 11:31 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> One of the more significant is the change to token,
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616#section-2.2
>
> token = 1*
>
>
> vs https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-3.2.6
>
> token = 1*tchar
>
> tchar = "!" /
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:43 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Do we want to backport these changes to 2.4.x? If so, what
> mechanism do we want to toggle the behavior of the server
> between 2616 and 7230..7235?
I would piggyback it on the "HttpProtocol" strict stuff that also
On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Julian Reschke
wrote:
> On 2016-05-17 19:01, Graham Leggett wrote:
>
>> On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr
>> wrote:
>>
>> Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic.
>>>
>>> We have a
On 2016-05-17 19:01, Graham Leggett wrote:
On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic.
We have a number of changes in the ABNF grammar between
RFC2616 and RFC7230..7235. Do we want trunk 2.6/3.0 to be
On 17 May 2016, at 6:43 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
> Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic.
>
> We have a number of changes in the ABNF grammar between
> RFC2616 and RFC7230..7235. Do we want trunk 2.6/3.0 to be
> an entirely RFC723x generation
Wondering what other contributors are thinking on this topic.
We have a number of changes in the ABNF grammar between
RFC2616 and RFC7230..7235. Do we want trunk 2.6/3.0 to be
an entirely RFC723x generation server, and drop all support for
RFC2616?
Do we want to backport these changes to 2.4.x?