Subject: Rejecting messages with illegal characters in header fields (was Re: h2 header field names)

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:20:14 -0700

On 3 September 2014 23:53, Julian Reschke <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Wait! Percent-Encoded?

OK, then we treat header field values containing forbidden characters
as malformed?  That invalidates a non-zero number of requests that our
various test runs have detected, I think.  Are we OK with that?  I am,
but I'm not as naturally conservative as some folks here.

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 20:26:30 +0200

> but I'm not as naturally conservative as some folks here.

I believe it's strictly better than rewriting to something the recipient 
doesn't exist...

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:28:52 -0700

> I believe it's strictly better than rewriting to something the recipient

I'm not sure about the strictly part, but if others are OK with this,
or I don't hear any objections, that's what I'll do.

An experiment might settle this, but I'm not sure if it's worthwhile.

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:10:43 +1000

> but I'm not as naturally conservative as some folks here.
Sounds good to me.​

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/