[Errata Rejected] RFC6266 (5383)

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC6266,
"Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5383

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Magnar Ovedal Myrtveit <magnar@myrtveit.com>
Date Reported: 2018-06-07
Rejected by: Francesca Palombini (IESG)

Section: 4.1

Original Text
-------------
     disp-ext-parm       = token "=" value
                         | ext-token "=" ext-value
     ext-token           = <the characters in token, followed by "*">

   Defined in [RFC2616]:

     token         = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
     quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
     value         = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6>
                   ; token | quoted-string

   Defined in [RFC5987]:

     ext-value   = <ext-value, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2>

Corrected Text
--------------
     disp-ext-parm       = parmname "=" value
                         | ext-parmname "=" ext-value
     ext-parmname        = <the characters in parmname, followed by "*">

   Defined in [RFC2616]:

     quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2>
     value         = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6>
                   ; token | quoted-string

   Defined in [RFC5987]:

     parmname    = <parmname, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2>
     ext-value   = <ext-value, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2>

Notes
-----
RFC 5987, Section 3.2.1, modifies the grammar from RFC 2616. These modifications should be used in RFC 6266. If not, it is impossible to determine whether a parameter should be a value or an ext-value based on the parameter name, since "*" is a valid character in token.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
The extended syntax is currently defined only for "filename", and any new parameter using the extended syntax would need to be defined in a document extending RFC 6266.

--------------------------------------
RFC6266 (draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-09)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)
Publication Date    : June 2011
Author(s)           : J. Reschke
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2022 08:27:05 UTC