- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 11:27:02 +0100
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, ylafon@w3.org, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, mnot@mnot.net, patrick.ducksong@gmail.com, tpauly@apple.com
- Cc: a.abfalterer@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2019-02-01 10:06, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7233, > "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5620 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Armin Abfalterer <a.abfalterer@gmail.com> > > Section: 4.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > Content-Range = byte-content-range > / other-content-range > > other-content-range = other-range-unit SP other-range-resp > other-range-resp = *CHAR > > Corrected Text > -------------- > > > Notes > ----- > Due to the loose definition of "other-content-range" invalid "byte content range" values are possible. > > For example, following invalid header value is not valid according to "byte-content-range" (as "complete-length" or "*" is missing) but is yet allowed by "other-content-range". > > Content-Range: bytes 42-1233/ > > The problem might be solved by excluding "bytes-unit" in "other-range-unit". > > 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 > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7233 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-26) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests > Publication Date : June 2014 > Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., Y. Lafon, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP > Area : Applications > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG I agree this is a problem (similar to other problems we solved already in RFC723*). The proposed fix however doesn't work for me. This is where a monolithic ABNF just does not work. I have opened <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/196> and recommend to set this to "held for document update". Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 1 February 2019 10:27:31 UTC