Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3663)
Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> Wed, 07 August 2013 19:04 UTC
Return-Path: <barryleiba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B8A821F9A70 for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SkVIZ647fAOR for <http-state@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x235.google.com (mail-qe0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E699E21F9406 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f53.google.com with SMTP id f6so1207896qej.26 for <http-state@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mPj7VIyBw9lveanaxVNueAhnqgP4zGNxlO+KrXuE32E=; b=o7YKWtCQ9B4U3RIvBwMERIpU4ys5ACVzcZGjz08N2GNu0v3OZP6WOWOTRRCUOfliZe 0ubGBixOn25oqDk5gn5gyOKLX77s/RvEUocY0y58Jfn1Ti1t/wAX/idC5Dm0dKd7xLYu okZ39YB64tMkZ2fNQkr2eZX45FpjTkKCi4L1gJw0hlEFAov3Z2blvblz9Vj9yZTIKMeK I7/CNr6SbPsNez6d/U+ldS1gaIrO19GPea7Uq09pAjK2opiuz/HgGqJF9SVC0gWsoKps LKZNodFhlkFZsFJ36WCvl1BfCxyYIy7AiF8bfPqFaHBt2wRx9xpPILDs39wRowHh6n+m SQNQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.30.73 with SMTP id q9mr2185575qeh.67.1375902246296; Wed, 07 Aug 2013 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: barryleiba@gmail.com
Received: by 10.224.59.211 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9a2552b7ebe74621ae0fa7e5fbf78680@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20130618002830.7DF236211A@rfc-editor.org> <7mavr8hhrqsfmcqt77181vqc3g3nl25s1d@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <9beb9558a94c434d84a0ccebfe4cc582@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAJE5ia84biazW1-yOWwUmx94SGLL2daF2PPdWaj6+=5qCaigJg@mail.gmail.com> <CALaySJL21aYDJKAq233FkZrUqk2H7uboo5GwgfURsB7hnRgkqQ@mail.gmail.com> <2ed31aa7639a49ffb9d689795335e88c@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <9a2552b7ebe74621ae0fa7e5fbf78680@BY2PR03MB269.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 21:04:06 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xTYQqpUiyvX2dtKnbrxeSIOV8w0
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+H3q=XCRtTGo2XXsEpk8vWd8fz8DJ5cTGXm_75=r0LHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
To: Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "presnick@qti.qualcomm.com" <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, "http-state@ietf.org" <http-state@ietf.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3663)
X-BeenThere: http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/http-state>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/http-state>, <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2013 19:04:08 -0000
Dave, have a look at the edited version before I click "HFDU", because once I do I can't edit it any more: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6265&eid=3663 Does that work? Barry On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:06 AM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote: > Based on my reading of http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/errata-processing.html > it seems that problems like the one I'm pointing out should still be Rejected if the > WG had consensus at the time on what the current design is. As far as I know, that's the > case and hence an erratum appears to be the wrong way to track the "flaw" (or unexpected > behavior). So while I've written a longer summary (attached), I'm not adding it into the errata system. > > What I think is, however, reasonable in an errata is to point out that the current odd/inefficient > behavior was intended by the WG, and thus the reader should expect it. I think that would be > a legitimate HFDU case under the argument that the current text causes confusion (it certainly > did for the Microsoft folks that caused me to file the erratum). > > Suggested updated text you can edit in... > > ===<begin snip>=== > > Section 5.1.4 states: >> A request-path path-matches a given cookie-path if at least one of >> the following conditions holds: >> >> o The cookie-path and the request-path are identical. > > The "identical" rule differs from the URI equivalence rule(s) in RFC 3986 > sections 6.2 and 2.1 (e.g., "If two URIs differ only in the case of hexadecimal > digits used in percent-encoded octets, they are equivalent.") The fact that > equivalent URIs have different cookies arguably violates the principle of > least astonishment. To avoid significant confusion and prevent such surprise, > this fact should be noted so that it is at least not unexpected. > > OLD: >> o The cookie-path and the request-path are identical. > NEW: >> o The cookie-path and the request-path are identical. Note that this >> differs from the rules in RFC 3986 for equivalence of the path component, >> and hence two equivalent paths can have different cookies. > > ===<end snip>=== > > If you can replace the original erratum text with the above, please do so. > If you cannot, feel free to append the above prefixed with some statement > to the effect that ABNF strings are case insensitive and so the statements about HEXDIG > were incorrect, and this text is a corrected summary of the issue. > > -Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Thaler > Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 1:53 PM > To: Barry Leiba; Adam Barth > Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; RFC Errata System; presnick@qti.qualcomm.com; Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com; http-state@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3663) > > Certainly the original issue as I phrased it is incorrect, so in that sense it's Rejected. > However, there is a functionality issue as I noted that results in unexpected behavior because two RFCs have differing definitions of equivalent. > The current RFCs do match the implementations, so it's really a design flaw in the RFCs not any bug in the implementations or doc per se. > I think the issue of unexpected behavior isn't an errata per se, it's a protocol "flaw" (in some sense) that should be noted somehow. > A HFDU errata would be one way to do that. There may be other ways. > > -----Original Message----- > From: barryleiba@gmail.com [mailto:barryleiba@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba > Sent: Monday, July 8, 2013 1:43 PM > To: Adam Barth > Cc: Dave Thaler; Bjoern Hoehrmann; RFC Errata System; presnick@qti.qualcomm.com; Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com; http-state@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3663) > > Where are we on this? Adam, Dave... should I mark this "Rejected"? > Dave, do you still contend that this report is correct? Or should some other change be proposed? > > Barry > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Adam Barth <ietf@adambarth.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> Thanks Bjoern. >>> >>> Interesting, well in that case there may be an issue in the RFC 6265 algorithm for path matching. >>> That's because it requires comparison for "identical" and "ab", "AB", "aB", and "Ab" are not "identical". >>> >>> So >>> http://www.example.com/%AB/foo >>> http://www.example.com/%ab/foo >>> http://www.example.com/%Ab/foo >>> http://www.example.com/%aB/foo >>> >>> are all "equivalent" in the language of RFC 3986, but not "identical" and hence a cookie on one will not match the others. >> >> The path-match algorithm does exactly what it says. Even though RFC >> 3986 might say that those strings are equivalent in some sense >> (perhaps as URIs?), the path-match algorithm in RFC 6265 treats them >> differently. In particularly, they're not identical and the >> path-match algorithm will likely return "false" for one or more of >> them. >> >>> It may still be worth having an errata noting the above issue, even if it's Hold For Document Update. >> >> As far as I can tell, the errata is incorrect. >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com> wrote: >>> I checked with one of the test teams at Microsoft and got this back: >>> >>>> There is a gap in the RFCs 3986 and 6265. RFC 3986 talks about the >>>> URI path and equivalence of encoded Unicode characters in the path section of the URI. >> >> I don't believe there is a gap. >> >>>> However, RFC 6265 section 5.1.4 >>>> does not specifically state that the pre-fix match should be done on the unescaped URL path. >> >> RFC 6265 gives a complete description of how to perform a path-match. >> A compliant implementation will appear to operate as if it does >> exactly what the specification says to do. Given that RFC 6265 >> doesn't say to unescape the path, that means you ought not unescape >> the path. >> >>>> All the browsers we tested against (IE, Chrome, Firefox) do this >>>> case-sensitive prefix matching before sending the cookies to the other page. >> >> Indeed. >> >>>> For IIS applications created with Unicode characters, IIS converts >>>> the escaped characters (like %0D%0C) to lower case, and they are >>>> justified since the URI spec clearly calls out that they are equivalent. >> >> IIS is welcome to do that by the URI spec. However, the strings are >> not treated equivalently by RFC 6265. >> >>>> When one page re-directs to another in IIS application, the cookies >>>> set for the first page are not presented to the application on the >>>> other pages. This problem exists with the cookie handling by all the >>>> browsers we tested against (IE, Chrome, Firefox). This is due to the gap I explained above. >> >> I don't see that as a problem. All the implementations are >> interoperating perfectly and matching the specification. It sounds >> like IIS has some undesirable behavior that its authors might want to >> modify. In any case, there's nothing to change about RFC 6265. The >> specification and the implementations are identical on this point. >> >> Adam >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net] >>> Sent: Monday, June 17, 2013 5:36 PM >>> To: RFC Errata System >>> Cc: abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu; barryleiba@computer.org; >>> presnick@qti.qualcomm.com; Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com; Dave >>> Thaler; http-state@ietf.org >>> Subject: Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3663) >>> >>> * RFC Errata System wrote: >>>>Notes >>>>----- >>>>HEXDIG is defined in [RFC5234], Appendix B.1 as >>>> HEXDIG = DIGIT / "A" / "B" / "C" / "D" / "E" / "F" >>>>Note that lower case a-f are not legal. >>> >>> As per RFC 5234: >>> >>> NOTE: >>> >>> ABNF strings are case insensitive and the character set for these >>> strings is US-ASCII. >>> >>> Hence: >>> >>> rulename = "abc" >>> >>> and: >>> >>> rulename = "aBc" >>> >>> will match "abc", "Abc", "aBc", "abC", "ABc", "aBC", "AbC", and >>> "ABC". >>> -- >>> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · >>> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: >>> +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de >>> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · >>> http://www.websitedev.de/ >>> >>> >>>
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Barry Leiba
- [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 … RFC Errata System
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Adam Barth
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Dave Thaler
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Dave Thaler
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Barry Leiba
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Dave Thaler
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Dave Thaler
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Dave Thaler
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Barry Leiba
- Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6… Dave Thaler