Update inets from RFC2616 to RFC7230?

[Gulyás Attila]

Thank you, Kenneth!
I just  realized that the  tone of my  initial email
feels  like I'm  trying  to blame  someone.. It  was
supposed to be a simple question, and not sure why I
phrased it like that.

Thank  you  for  the  resources and  for  the  basic
comparison, Loïc!
With  my  minimal  HTTP experience,  I  was  somehow
under  the   impression  that   RFC723x  conformance
would  provide extra  benefit.  I  also forgot  that
most  well-written  servers respect  the  robustness
principle.

Respectfully,
Attila

On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 10:37 AM Loïc Hoguin <essen@REDACTED> wrote:

> The differences are mostly around behavioral differences in clients then
> and now. RFC723x specs are more strict in general (because clients have
> improved over the years).
>
> Don't waste your time doing a full review though because there's a new
> update to the spec that's being worked on:
> https://github.com/httpwg/http-core
>
> There might also be an update to the HTTP/2 RFC soon.
>
> Test suite you could get a good start from these, particularly the first
> one:
>
> * https://github.com/ninenines/cowboy/blob/master/test/rfc7230_SUITE.erl
> * https://github.com/ninenines/cowboy/blob/master/test/rfc7231_SUITE.erl
>
> I'll update them when the new RFCs are out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On 06/10/2020 12:19, Kenneth Lundin wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It would be interesting to hear what you think is missing to make us
> > conform to RFC7230? I think we have taken in support for parts of
> > RFC7230 and that our statement regarding RCF2616 could be updated so say
> > RFC7230 for quite many functions. Would be good to have a list of what
> > is missing to be RFC7230 conformant and then we can take it from there.
> > It would also be interesting to have test cases related to RFC7230
> > conformance.
> >
> > So I would say that contributions could be accepted if they don't
> > introduce incompatibilities for current users.
> >
> > /Kenneth , Erlang/OTP Ericsson
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:40 AM Gulyás Attila <toraritte@REDACTED
> > <mailto:toraritte@REDACTED>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     Are there any plans to update inets to conform to RFC7230? Couldn't
> >     find much on google.. (one example is
> >     https://github.com/erlang/otp/pull/2206)
> >
> >     I know there's a plethora of modern http client and server projects
> >     out there, but there are good use cases to use only the built-in
> >     app, and if it is already in there, why not keep it up to date?
> >     Unless I missed the announcement that it is planned to be phased out.
> >
> >     I presume the answer will be along the lines of having little time
> >     for it (as there have been tons of great additions to the language
> >     in the past releases). If that's the case, would contributions be
> >     accepted towards this goal?
> >
> >     Appreciatively,
> >     Attila
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Loïc Hoguin
> https://ninenines.eu
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20201021/a9a0f594/attachment.htm>