Re: [http-state] BNF notation differences, was: Comments on draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-08.txt (1 - 4.1.2.)

[Adam Barth <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Julian Reschke <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 31.05.2010 18:25, Adam Barth wrote:
>>> Copying the rfc1123-date grammar from draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-09
>>> into an appendix would probably be the best solution as differences with
>>> case-sensitivity and white space would then no longer be a source of
>>> confusion. Otherwise there simply should be a reminder that the grammar
>>> notation is different from RFC 2616 and care must be taken to apply the
>>> right rules for imported symbols.
>>
>> I've add the following text near the use of 1123-date:
>>
>> [[
>> sane-cookie-date  =<rfc1123-date, as defined in RFC 2616>
>>                     ; Note that RFC 2616 uses a different grammatical
>> notation
>>                     ; than this document (which uses ABNF from RFC5234).
>> ]]
>>
>> Hopefully that addresses your concerns.
>> ...
>
> The current ABNF is:
>
> set-cookie-header = "Set-Cookie:" SP set-cookie-string
> set-cookie-string = cookie-pair *( ";" SP cookie-av )
> cookie-pair       = cookie-name "=" cookie-value
> cookie-name       = token
> cookie-value      = token
> token             = <token, defined in [RFC 2616], Section 2.2>
>
> cookie-av         = expires-av / max-age-av / domain-av /
>                    path-av / secure-av / httponly-av /
>                    extension-av
> expires-av        = "Expires=" sane-cookie-date
> sane-cookie-date  = <rfc1123-date, defined in [RFC 2616], Section 3.3.1>
>                    ; Note that RFC 2616 uses a different grammatical
>                    ; notation than this document (which uses ABNF
>                    ; from [RFC5234]).
> max-age-av        = "Max-Age=" 1*DIGIT
> domain-av         = "Domain=" domain-value
> domain-value      = <subdomain, defined in [RFC 1034], Section 3.5>
> path-av           = "Path=" path-value
> path-value        = <any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
> secure-av         = "Secure"
> httponly-av       = "HttpOnly"
> extension-av      = <any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
>
> So the comment was applied to sane-cookie-date, but it also applies to
> token. Furthermore, the ABNF for domain-value (RFC 1034) uses yet another
> syntax. So maybe it would be better to remove the comment again, and just to
> add a prose warning that these three productions inherited from other specs
> are defined in different variants of ABNF.

Done.

> Also, re:
>
>  <any CHAR except CTLs or ";">
>
> I think it would be good to avoid prose productions. In this case, an
> alternative would be:
>
>  0x20-3A / 0x3C-7E
>  ; any CHAR except CTLs or ";"

I've left this as is.  The RFC Editor can get on my case if he or she
doesn't like this formulation.

Adam