- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 11:44:16 +0000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, tpauly@apple.com, niklas.wolber-rfc@octopost.eu, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
5234 2.3 says: ABNF strings are case insensitive and the character set for these strings is US-ASCII. HEXDIG is defined as an alternation between strings. This errata should be rejected. Cheers, > On 31 Oct 2022, at 11:40 am, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 03:50:25AM -0700, RFC Errata System wrote: >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9112, >> "HTTP/1.1". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7214 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Niklas Wolber <niklas.wolber-rfc@octopost.eu> >> >> Section: 1.2 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in >> [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF >> (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), >> HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F/a-f), HTAB (horizontal tab), LF (line >> feed), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any >> visible [USASCII] character). >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> The following core rules are included by reference, as defined in >> [RFC5234], Appendix B.1: ALPHA (letters), CR (carriage return), CRLF >> (CR LF), CTL (controls), DIGIT (decimal 0-9), DQUOTE (double quote), >> HEXDIG (hexadecimal 0-9/A-F), HTAB (horizontal tab), LF (line >> feed), OCTET (any 8-bit sequence of data), SP (space), and VCHAR (any >> visible [USASCII] character). >> >> Notes >> ----- >> Rule HEXDIG from RFC5234 is >> HEXDIG = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" >> excluding lower-case letters. > > That's concerning, because HEXDIG is only used to define chunk-size, and > since chunk-size was introduced, it has always supported lower-case. This > same definition was already present in 7230, which explicitly mentioned > the lower-case chars as well. > > The proposed change is not acceptable as we cannot forbid lower-case hex > digits in chunk sizes 25 years after they've been widely used, so the > alternative might be to stop relying on HEXDIG for chunk sizes and fall > back to a local "HEX" definition like 2616 did. > > Just my two cents, > Willy -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 31 October 2022 11:45:09 UTC