W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (5620)

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
Message-ID: <16613086-800a-00c5-2b40-2e89e6794775@greenbytes.de>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 1 February 2019 10:27:32 UTC