4 ms·

> That is entirely my point. If the author wants to disable merge slashes then they need to replace the RFC I linked to with one that explicitly says what to d

by cxr 6mo ago

> That is entirely my point. If the author wants to disable merge slashes then they need to replace the RFC I linked to with one that explicitly says what to do or not do using strong verbiage that is explicit as I explained. That doesn't seem to be the case. You said, "NGinx, Kube-NGINX, Apache, Traefik all default to normalizing request paths per reference of RFC 3986". That's a strong claim, not an appeal to ambiguity. > Blog articles[…] will not set a standard. Blog posts absolutely have the power to influence future developments. That's historically how it has worked. "RFC" stands for "Request For Comments".

Bender 6mo ago
to influence future developments This development work is already completed. New web daemons would likely just follow the precident that has been set by the popular daemons as to not cause confusion, unexpected behavior and even more arguments. If a notable sized group of developers would like to contact all the web daemon maintainers I can list all their contact information. In my experience these developers and F5 are not very open to making sweeping changes but there is mostly no harm in trying. The represenative should be someone thick skinned.
- cxr 6mo ago
  > This development work is already completed. You're prevaricating. Earlier: > they need to replace the RFC I linked to with one that explicitly says what to do or not do Do they need to work on getting the RFC to be more explicit about the correct behavior or not?
  - Bender 6mo ago
    It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to replace the RFC with a new one and then work with the existing web daemon developers to change their defaults. There should also be an effort to communicate these changes to all the internet companies world wide long in advance as this will be a breaking change for many people. Perhaps I am just jaded but I think this will break a lot of stuff and cause a lot of really bad maintenance windows and other fallout. Who among the developers is willing to take the lead on this? You appear to be very articulate and astute. Are you taking the lead?
    - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
      If cxr takes the lead, I'll be happy to help too. I don't have much time but I can provide some support in this monumental struggle.
    - cxr 6mo ago
      > It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to[…] That's not what I asked. In one breath, you've said they need to take up that effort. In the next breath, you've said that it's a done deal. I'm asking: which is it? Making up your mind (instead of perpetually moving the goalposts) is up to you.
      - Timwi 6mo ago
        I believe you misunderstood them. The way I interpreted it is: 1) the development is already done, so the developers have broad consensus on how it should work; 2) the only thing that can break that consensus is a new RFC that tells them in no uncertain terms to do it differently.

by cxr 6mo ago

Bender 6mo ago

to influence future developments This development work is already completed. New web daemons would likely just follow the precident that has been set by the popular daemons as to not cause confusion, unexpected behavior and even more arguments. If a notable sized group of developers would like to contact all the web daemon maintainers I can list all their contact information. In my experience these developers and F5 are not very open to making sweeping changes but there is mostly no harm in trying. The represenative should be someone thick skinned.

cxr 6mo ago
> This development work is already completed. You're prevaricating. Earlier: > they need to replace the RFC I linked to with one that explicitly says what to do or not do Do they need to work on getting the RFC to be more explicit about the correct behavior or not?
- Bender 6mo ago
  It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to replace the RFC with a new one and then work with the existing web daemon developers to change their defaults. There should also be an effort to communicate these changes to all the internet companies world wide long in advance as this will be a breaking change for many people. Perhaps I am just jaded but I think this will break a lot of stuff and cause a lot of really bad maintenance windows and other fallout. Who among the developers is willing to take the lead on this? You appear to be very articulate and astute. Are you taking the lead?
  - bigbadfeline 6mo ago
    If cxr takes the lead, I'll be happy to help too. I don't have much time but I can provide some support in this monumental struggle.
  - cxr 6mo ago
    > It really isn't up to me. If enough developers find this to be an important issue then the first step would be to[…] That's not what I asked. In one breath, you've said they need to take up that effort. In the next breath, you've said that it's a done deal. I'm asking: which is it? Making up your mind (instead of perpetually moving the goalposts) is up to you.
    - Timwi 6mo ago
      I believe you misunderstood them. The way I interpreted it is: 1) the development is already done, so the developers have broad consensus on how it should work; 2) the only thing that can break that consensus is a new RFC that tells them in no uncertain terms to do it differently.