Re: [apps-discuss] Question about RFC 7239

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Sun, 28 August 2016 20:27 UTC

Return-Path: <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF3412B047 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jqC6YqCJOoRU for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0FCF12B03A for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 13:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.178.20] ([93.217.65.49]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx102) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LcVOE-1bERBA1dfa-00jqew; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:27:50 +0200
To: "luigipinca@libero.it" <luigipinca@libero.it>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
References: <2119936850.4077721472413802214.JavaMail.httpd@webmail-56.iol.local>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <8c1cbfee-e459-59c5-0aab-f8d9e54fbd76@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 22:27:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2119936850.4077721472413802214.JavaMail.httpd@webmail-56.iol.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:b5N8TnUlt8KjU2ztBPnci4PyBQe96jswEbq5PNJJzwdv8q7WdmW cB0ePZLFZEB3PP4MSoSOgoLv2sNM2uKvcoO5Prxrct4pFI38Z8z1VodFiMkXuT7NA1v6N3E H1q2SwfnJKZPu2j5u8Yc7ckjgkb6O5oqLlheeWKAHIUPbcFVoKusPpFqBDyr33NqWeqoWG8 HETPPNOuXjuIJVj5IBcFg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:Rhu1RyjKnZA=:dTrlQqpWGqnqtjXwTgHUb9 wXsDOPA0VSmA0WemKw84U46LdycawlXg92d9dnHYT7fVMqVnXGlzXllANIJwDvj2ir0w328he pbPjj+/2kSYtHS2zXVLiqvGfSvZNZT7idhf2ZQcC6oxyBGZZhQy6m1QDoM7qCbLn2A5BOlLZB QHfyMGF1TbB+3c/NXENLQeswdYdprpw34UfcbIQnRDOQ4YwOhv0nZ7Kv9N1eZESBaSP1X3Yvf PjCuYyRd0YK+BlynLmSgFKbY/9YXeJQOffhOk5G3lx/mnu+NM/lx1wfEOUROAZpq6ubGIjhR1 zbFHpJj+TqJeu313g+2+YGIHTMVw4llctgZqe58AQY81oFw9Cw9hKV7kAx/lKdXpMWxg9snCz y9F15xUb498wvLkYrAZGJ9qAIeXdMzmscCDL1kvlzWOQs3PS5ahQFS3+oYVCbtD+dqqxIHUFi JW7yKO9p0LGoyjH+SjCfUbejIzr7g2Ua1ZBO9WzOWH157xOUXXyON/PzAe+I7rgOC1ZysUFSr 1SZ5l8fShNtMe1eHICdYh2kMwV7plwuC9mfXAxTdeMBqfD46lyISJ9FgTo33tDsJ3ULGBL3jz R4c/sl5qv3Nsiqcc7r4iRHiqEukBGjV4vk87H7vjuKfwrxe9X7cOvYyULfce6P/jc3JH7H9fb 7v6zkK3ruQhZYFLzVNC3jjcR43CDjFmkVZhDM2T/+6FDistW6LPTGMQUDab0xzRzC9kQPCdil c7fg2s0ZIACwVUyaXdkqiHTy2wJFe8zYVB4rDvvxTqQwVmJdAu507zBdp0csakpNXkjXSwoBx 6ggmW52
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/oDky5ueIWsL02V7MnZu8HR_wxXs>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] Question about RFC 7239
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 20:27:56 -0000

On 2016-08-28 21:50, luigipinca@libero.it wrote:
> Hello,
> I have a question about the "Forwarded" HTTP header field, defined in
> section 4 of RFC 7239.
> The ABNF definition for the header field value is:
>
> Forwarded   = 1#forwarded-element
>
> forwarded-element =
>    [ forwarded-pair ] *( ";" [ forwarded-pair ] )
>
> forwarded-pair = token "=" value
> value          = token / quoted-string
>
> token = <Defined in [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>
> quoted-string = <Defined in [RFC7230], Section 3.2.6>
>
> If I'm reading this correctly, an empty forwarded-element or one made of
> only ";"  is a valid element.

Nope.

See <https://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#abnf.extension>.

 > ...

Best regards, Julian