Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread Jacob Champion
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 '"', '(', ')',

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread William A Rowe Jr
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

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread Jacob Champion
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 = "!" /

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread Eric Covener
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

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread William A Rowe Jr
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

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread Julian Reschke
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

Re: RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread Graham Leggett
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

RFC 7230..7235 Parsing Conformance?

2016-05-17 Thread William A Rowe Jr
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?