[occi-wg] Request for clarification: Are multiple lines allowed?

[Jamie Marshall]

Ralf,
I would agree with you on the section 4.2 in RFC 2616. It is clearly stated. However in the field it is often missing from implementations where we find:
  $a = split(":",$header);
type stuff which will exception with extended line folded values.
It has happened to me already and there is no way around it.
SincerelyJamie

> To: vincenzo.ciaschini at cnaf.infn.it; andrew.edmonds at zhaw.ch
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:32:39 +0100
> From: ralf at nyren.net
> CC: occi-wg at ogf.org; fedcloud-tf at mailman.egi.eu
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Request for clarification: Are multiple lines allowed?
> 
> Hi,
> 
> You are allowed to split a header into multiple lines provided you indent  
> them. See section 4.2 in RFC2616.
> 
> <quote>
> Header fields can be extended over multiple lines by preceding each extra  
> line with at least one SP or HT.
> </quote>
> 
> regards, Ralf
> 
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:53:01 +0100, Andy Edmonds <andrew.edmonds at zhaw.ch>  
> wrote:
> 
> > I believe that not is allowed. The newlines in this case are merely for
> > readability purposes. Thijs?
> >
> > On 25 February 2013 16:44, Vincenzo Ciaschini <
> > vincenzo.ciaschini at cnaf.infn.it> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andy,
> >>
> >>     Thanks for the fast answer!
> >>
> >>     A clarification is possibly needed: what we are discussing in the
> >> Federated
> >> Cloud group is not what happens when multiple headers are present, but
> >> if a single
> >> Category header element can be written on multiple lines. i.e. if the
> >> following
> >> representation of a category, taken from page 20:
> >>
> >> Category: storage;
> >>     scheme="http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/infrastructure#";
> >>     class="kind";
> >>     title="Storage Resource";
> >>     rel="http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/core#resource";
> >>     location="/storage/";
> >>     attributes="occi.storage.size{required}
> >> occi.storage.state{immutable}";
> >>
> >> actions="http://schemas.ogf.org/occi/infrastructure/storage/action#resize
> >> ...";
> >>
> >> Is acceptable in the answer as is, with the newlines between elements
> >> and the
> >> indentation, or if it is supposed to be on a single line.
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >>     Vincenzo
> >>
> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:10:00 +0100, Andy Edmonds wrote:
> >> > Hi Vincenzo
> >> > Having a the same header repeated multiple times with different
> >> > values
> >> > is allowable by the HTTP spec. OCCI respects (OCCI always aims to
> >> > respect the HTTP spec RFC2616) this hence why you may see two
> >> > different renderings: one with all values "compressed" into one
> >> > header
> >> > line or multiple same headers with different values. If you
> >> > "compress"
> >> > each value must be ',' delineated. Note these rules also apply if the
> >> > content is supplied in the body (OCCI specific).
> >> >
> >> > HTH,
> >> >
> >> > Andy
> >> >
> >> > Andy Edmonds Æ
> >> > Senior Researcher
> >> > Institute of Information Technology
> >> > Zürich University of Applied Sciences
> >> > http://www.cloudcomp.ch [4], @dizz
> >> >
> >> > On 25 February 2013 16:03, Vincenzo Ciaschini  wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dear members of the occi-wg,
> >> >>
> >> >>    In the federated clouds working group, we are having a
> >> >> discussion about the interpretation of the HTTP rendering of the
> >> >> OCCI standard (document GFD.185,
> >> >> http://ogf.org/documents/GFD.185.pdf [1])
> >> >>
> >> >>    Our doubt is the following.
> >> >>
> >> >>    In several examples in the document, for examples in section
> >> >> 3.4, page 8 or in section 3.5.1, page 20, we see Category: elements
> >> >> laid out in multiple lines.
> >> >>
> >> >>    Our doubt is if this examples are normative, and thus it is
> >> >> acceptable to write them in multiple lines, or if this had been done
> >> >> just for readability, and the answers from the OCCI server should
> >> >> actually lay out a Category in a single line.
> >> >>
> >> >>    In the interest of interoperability among our different
> >> >> implementations, can you please clarify this point?
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> >>    On behalf of the Federated Clouds Working Group
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> occi-wg mailing list
> >> >> occi-wg at ogf.org [2]
> >> >> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg [3]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Links:
> >> > ------
> >> > [1] http://ogf.org/documents/GFD.185.pdf
> >> > [2] mailto:occi-wg at ogf.org
> >> > [3] https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >> > [4] http://www.cloudcomp.ch
> >> > [5] mailto:vincenzo.ciaschini at cnaf.infn.it
> >>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20130225/fd4348ab/attachment.html>