- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2019 17:51:05 +0100
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, 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 05.02.2019 17:11, RFC Errata System 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/eid5623 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: Armin Abfalterer <a.abfalterer@gmail.com> > > 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. Why would we want to do that? -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2019 16:51:33 UTC