- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:22:33 -0600
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 04/19/2016 12:18 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: > I *think* we've come to a place where there's agreement on accepting the errata, but with BWS replacing OWS throughout; i.e.: > > chunk-ext = *( BWS ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] ) > > Everyone OK with that? FWIW, I am OK with that "better BWS than nothing" solution. Thank you, Alex. >> On 14 Apr 2016, at 2:05 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> The following errata report has been submitted 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=4667 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> >> >> Section: 4.1.1 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> chunk-ext = *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] ) >> >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> chunk-ext = *( ";" OWS chunk-ext-name [ "=" 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 OWS 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 OWS _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. >> >> If all of the above suggestions are applied, the final syntax becomes: >> >> chunk-ext = *( OWS ";" OWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] ) >> >> Instructions: >> ------------- >> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please >> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or >> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) >> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> 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 >> >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2016 14:23:38 UTC