- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
- To: a.abfalterer@gmail.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
The following errata report has been rejected 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/eid5623
--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Armin Abfalterer <a.abfalterer@gmail.com>
Date Reported: 2019-02-05
Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG)
Section: 2.7
Original Text
-------------
absolute-URI = <absolute-URI, see [RFC3986], Section 4.3>
Corrected Text
--------------
Notes
-----
RFC3986 defines "absolute-URI" very openly, especially regarding to "hier-part":
absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty
/ path-absolute
/ path-rootless
/ path-empty
The impact is reflected in RFC 7231 in the definition of the header fields Referer and Content-Location.
absolute-URI = <absolute-URI, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7>
Thus, following examples of header values are considered valid
Referer: https:foo/bar
Referer: https:/foo
Referer: https:/
Referer: foo:/
I'd suggest to define "hier-part" (but also "scheme") more strictly.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
As per WG discussion: <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2019JanMar/0130.html>
--------------------------------------
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 Monday, 15 April 2019 14:06:25 UTC