W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

[Errata Verified] RFC7230 (4825)

From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: rousskov@measurement-factory.com, fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
Cc: aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20161007202929.926BAB80A0E@rfc-editor.org>
The following errata report has been verified for RFC7230,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4825

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date Reported: 2016-04-13
Verified by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG)

Section: Appendix B

Original Text
-------------
chunk-ext      = *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] )


Corrected Text
--------------
chunk-ext      = *( BWS  ";" BWS chunk-ext-name
                    [ BWS  "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )

Notes
-----
The infamous "implicit *LWS" syntax rule in RFC 2616 allowed whitespace between
";" and chunk-ext-name in chunk-ext. Some HTTP agents generate that whitespace.
In my experience, HTTP agents that can parse chunk extensions usually can handle
that whitespace. Moreover, ICAP, which generally relies on HTTP/1 for its message
syntax, uses that whitespace when defining the "ieof" chunk extension in RFC 3507
Section 4.5:

      \r\n
      0; ieof\r\n\r\n

IMHO, RFC 7230 should either allow BWS before chunk-ext-name or at the very least
explicitly document the HTTP/1 syntax change and its effect on parsers used for both
ICAP and HTTP/1 messages (a very common case for ICAP-supporting HTTP
intermediaries and ICAP services).

I also recommend adding BWS around "=", for consistency and RFC 2616 backward
compatibility reasons. HTTPbis RFCs already do that for transfer-parameter and
auth-param that have similar syntax.

Please also consider adding BWS _before_ ";" for consistency and RFC 2616 backward
compatibility reasons. HTTPbis RFCs already do that for transfer-extension,
accept-ext,  t-ranking, and other constructs with similar syntax.


--------------------------------------
RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
Publication Date    : June 2014
Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG
Received on Friday, 7 October 2016 20:30:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 7 October 2016 20:30:04 UTC