rfc2231-in-http: token characters, was: FYI: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-08.txt

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Fri, 05 February 2010 10:35 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D8EF3A6991 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 02:35:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.951, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id quAkYCbT869P for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 02:35:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id CAABB3A69B9 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Feb 2010 02:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 05 Feb 2010 10:36:27 -0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de (EHLO [192.168.1.105]) [217.91.35.233] by mail.gmx.net (mp065) with SMTP; 05 Feb 2010 11:36:27 +0100
X-Authenticated: #1915285
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+EIVoMxriEOZHuw2vY0V57/x/u8vuFVWL4OdCyet i+CApPa15oD3RJ
Message-ID: <4B6BF4A4.1060600@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:36:20 +0100
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF Apps Discuss <apps-discuss@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Subject: rfc2231-in-http: token characters, was: FYI: I-D Action:draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-08.txt
References: <20100119113001.B5DD23A686C@core3.amsl.com> <4B55A549.7040904@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4B55A549.7040904@gmx.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-FuHaFi: 0.53000000000000003
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:35:41 -0000

Julian Reschke wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have updated the draft with feedback I got during the informal "last 
> call" that ended yesterday (I added a statement about the relation RFC 
> 2388, and added information about existing implementations).
> 
> See diffs at 
> <http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-08.txt>.
> 
> Next, I'll send a publication request to the Apps Area Directors.
> 
> Best regards, Julian
> ...

In the meantime it was discovered that the allowed characters inside 
RFC2231-encoded parameter values differ from what RFC 2231 specifies.

There are two reasons for that:

1) token in RFC 2616 disallows "{" and "}", while token in MIME (RFC 
2231 and RFC 2045) does not; thus these are disallowed in 
rfc2231-in-http as well, and

2) I was disallowing more characters then I wanted to, and also allowed 
":" which shouldn't have been there.

For 1) I have added an explanation, simply pointing out the difference 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-latest.html#rfc.issue.tokengrammar>)

For 2), I have now changed the ABNF so that all characters from 
RFC2616's token, except for the special characters used in 2231 ("*", 
"%", "'"), are allowed. 
(<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-rfc2231-in-http-latest.html#rfc.issue.attrcharvstoken>)

I'm planning to submit a new draft early next week, and then to get to 
IETF LC soonish.

Best regards, Julian

PS: also I have started work on tools that allow sanity checks on ABNF 
productions, such as "set A is expected to be identical to set (B \ C)", 
so things like that can be checked more easily in the future.