IETF Logo Mail Archive

[apps-discuss] R: Re: Question about RFC 7239

"luigipinca@libero.it" <luigipinca@libero.it> Sun, 28 August 2016 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <luigipinca@libero.it>
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 DA23C12B00A for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.721
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.721 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=libero.it
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 4V51i3XHwoKY for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from libero.it (smtp-17.italiaonline.it [212.48.25.145]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FAAB127A90 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail-56.iol.local ([10.255.25.88]) by smtp-17.iol.local with SMTP id e7Wkb8JpH681se7WkbMGwq; Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:22:05 +0200
x-libjamoibt: 1601
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=libero.it; s=s2014; t=1472419325; bh=ybS4kTBrR8U37h7CFgOglpjDkgW6WZP/WXoMiVhAUJg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject; b=p2s0NdX9amu0i1iIvR8vwSKvmR4zNUluBCxVIvCLKhMCrXPkK7hFITlnm3RYNeNiw Z/UBx9DnMlHXEPFGJrz5XtnJvQdEbX6gvpdB1Fp/sN8chGrmYrO4kvq9LgqHQ7YRal STRGxp8s71lhNfkgmnaO4DqJvqLRmyu4aAnc7qUm1SnBnBaSZH53uPtmX7F0kev34v 8ezEURI4qXzlojh+xgxhyPlmYWBJmU8ncL78haGI337wNXb88FSPH66j9T9TQW9mr+ hQCx8E+zSR8iiY1fdQ9f7wGlXReQQSdrBEdaswr4/H6n/wx9/2DtuFNvsSFEtdUvoL ZFWaVWEVIxebA==
X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=LYJ+0XXi c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=j7JVuU1FKh+ZZ1Jgs8mnSQ==:117 a=8D6cX0wMWuUA:10 a=Pfsz1xswR3AA:10 a=x1-6zHxI9d0A:10 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=6oWpXkWWAAAA:8 a=eXGqAOYZP252Kf6t_SgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Mi1i6eMwxqIA:10 a=-FEs8UIgK8oA:10 a=NWVoK91CQyQA:10 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22 a=tJap5ArHYoT-Y_nFgk9U:22
Message-ID: <399542882.4083761472419322679.JavaMail.httpd@webmail-56.iol.local>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2016 23:22:02 +0200
From: "luigipinca@libero.it" <luigipinca@libero.it>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, apps-discuss@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SenderIP: 212.124.190.235
X-libjamv: G1V9zckZIxo=
X-libjamsun: +nchCLwTKBjpm2FxeTVV4Fz3pZQ3C24n
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfNEwfhRuvE0xkR6SBUF1PzLI+yeMS55sFhVxxqkw8RgLLmpvhcJ06Zd3ZuRXoRThdR0BqAC4PNXBLfHmul9OWukQ9uwFFGagezw3d6GM456abu3T/LmW QrIqzNwKCn618auUAhyKNCH9c+Maq5zg4/cRGgWH/lKPNBpP8ZBsFTCuCdGJ5omz5Zeq77Ccjw9lDK2mwp33HLjpwN+IilXEV+g=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/owTCnlnuGk7j46JNp9uzkQHqxuo>
Subject: [apps-discuss] R: Re: Question about RFC 7239
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "luigipinca@libero.it" <luigipinca@libero.it>
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 21:22:09 -0000

Thank you Julian but I still don't fully get it.
According to the #rule extension as shown in your link,

"foo , ,bar,"

is a valid value, so I assume that in our case

"; , ,"

is also a valid value as forwarded-element is defined like this

forwarded-element = [ forwarded-pair ] *( ";" [ forwarded-pair ] )

My main concern is actually on this definition. Why is forwarded-pair 
optional?

Regards,

Luigi

>----Messaggio originale----
>Da: "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>Data: 28/08/2016 22.27
>A: "luigipinca@libero.it"<luigipinca@libero.it>, <apps-discuss@ietf.org>
>Ogg: Re: [apps-discuss] Question about RFC 7239
>
>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
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email