Re: RFC2617 errata?

Ah thanks. I missed that, and was led down the garden path by challenge, 
as you suggest. I agree that it should be made explicit, especially 
since this convention is imported from 2616, even though it doesn't 
appear to be relied upon as much there.

On Thursday, May 23, 2002, at 09:16  PM, Alex Rousskov wrote:

> On Thu, 23 May 2002, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Browsing 2617, I came across:
>>     credentials = auth-scheme #auth-param
>> Is this missing a 1*SP?
> My understanding is that since auth-scheme ends with a token and
> auth-param starts with a token, LWS is implied by the BNF:
>    implied *LWS
>       The grammar described by this specification is word-based. Except
>       where noted otherwise, linear white space (LWS) can be included
>       between any two adjacent words (token or quoted-string), and
>       between adjacent words and separators, without changing the
>       interpretation of a field. At least one delimiter (LWS and/or
>       separators) MUST exist between any two tokens (for the definition
>       of "token" below), since they would otherwise be interpreted as a
>       single token.
> However, for consistency and readability reasons, it should probably
> be made explicit, like in the challenge case:
>       challenge   = auth-scheme 1*SP 1#auth-param
> Alex.
Mark Nottingham

Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 00:35:09 UTC