W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-dist-auth@w3.org > October to December 2005

Re: [Bug 201] LWS allowed in Coded-URL

From: Lisa Dusseault <lisa@osafoundation.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 08:26:48 -0800
Message-Id: <1f05a53936892c281e1cbebe22131440@osafoundation.org>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, WebDAV WG <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>

If I understand correctly, that's not the only place where RFC2616's  
LWS rules get us into trouble.

    TimeOut = "Timeout" ":" 1#TimeType
    TimeType = ("Second-" DAVTimeOutVal | "Infinite")
    DAVTimeOutVal = 1*digit

Applying the 2616 word-based grammer to those rules, we could have  
Timeout headers like

   Timeout: Second-   	        1111

   Timeout: Second-1   1   1   1

Is my understanding of 2616 BNF grammar correct?  I'm not sure if  
1*DIGIT is one token or several, so it's not entirely clear to me if  
the second example is allowed.  Certainly the intent of 2616 is not to  
allow that because values like Content-Length are defined as 1*DIGIT.

Lisa

On Dec 4, 2005, at 1:09 AM, bugzilla@soe.ucsc.edu wrote:

> http://ietf.cse.ucsc.edu:8080/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=201
>
> julian.reschke@greenbytes.de changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> -----
>          AssignedTo|julian.reschke@greenbytes.de|lisa@osafoundation.org
>
>
>
> ------- Additional Comments From julian.reschke@greenbytes.de   
> 2005-12-04 01:09 -------
> Explanation:
> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2616.html#rfc.section.2.1.p.11>
>
> Suggested change: state that LWS is not allowed here, just like in the
> grammar for "opaquelocktoken".
>
>
>
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 16:27:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:44:11 GMT