Subject: [Bug 160] IF_HEADERS_CAN_GET_LONG

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 04:20:52 -0800

http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=160

------- Additional Comments From [email-masked]  2005-11-19 04:20 -------
bis changes the grammar with the intent to allow multi-line If headers, but I
think it fails to do that properly. See also bug 171
(<http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171>)

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:37:30 -0800

Just to educate me, what is the limit on header length and where is that
defined?

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:55:22 +0100

> Just to educate me, what is the limit on header length and where is that

I don't think that there is a defined limit (see 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#message.headers>).

The concern was that clients/proxies/servers may indeed be limited, and 
because the "If" header in theory can get very complex, that would 
become a problem.

What I would like to understand *before* changing RFC2518 is whether the 
potential implementation limits are in header length, or in header 
*line* length. In the latter case, the solution would be to just use 
CRLF inside header lines, as allowed by RFC2616.

Did anybody actually ever experience a problem? If not, I'd recommend 
just leave things as they are in RFC2518.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:08:26 +0100

I have yet to hear of a concrete field problem for this.

+1 to leave as it it.

Am 24.11.2005 um 16:55 schrieb Julian Reschke:

> The concern was that clients/proxies/servers may indeed be limited, 
> and because the "If" header in theory can get very complex, that would 
> become a problem.
>
> What I would like to understand *before* changing RFC2518 is whether 
> the potential implementation limits are in header length, or in header

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:26:59 +0100

> I have yet to hear of a concrete field problem for this.

...where "leave as it is" means undo the changes done to RFC2518, right?

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Stefan Eissing <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:46:29 +0100

Leave the syntax of the IF header as it is in 2518.

---

From: Lisa Dusseault <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:42:05 -0800

Joel Soderberg brought this up; it should be part of those interop 
notes, and yes, it was an actual experienced problem as far as I can 
remember.

Lisa

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:48:26 +0100

> notes, and yes, it was an actual experienced problem as far as I can 

So again,

- was this a question of header length oder header line length?, and

- is the problem still present?

Unless we can answer those, I'm -1 on making a change, in particular as 
the current definition doesn't work 
(<http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171>).

Best regards, Julian