Re: [http-state] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6265 (3430)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6265,
> "HTTP State Management Mechanism".
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6265&eid=3430
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Zhong Yu <[e-mail]>
>
> Section: 4.1.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>  max-age-av        = "Max-Age=" non-zero-digit *DIGIT
>                        ; In practice, both expires-av and max-age-av
>                        ; are limited to dates representable by the
>                        ; user agent.
>  non-zero-digit    = %x31-39
>                        ; digits 1 through 9
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>  max-age-av        = "Max-Age=" 1*DIGIT
>                        ; In practice, both expires-av and max-age-av
>                        ; are limited to dates representable by the
>                        ; user agent.
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> The current text forbids a server to send Max-Age=0.

Actually, it's much worse than that: the ABNF for max-age-av does not
match the text in Section 5.2.2 at all (5.2.2 allows a "-" as well,
and values less than or equal to zero).  Before verifying this, we
need to check whether things like "-1" were meant to be valid --
whether the error is only in the ABNF, or whether 5.2.2 is (also)
wrong.

The easiest fix is to make the ABNF match Section 5.2.2, which could
be done this way:

Original Text
-------------
   max-age-av        = "Max-Age=" non-zero-digit *DIGIT

Corrected Text
-------------
  max-age-av        = "Max-Age=" (DIGIT / ("-" non-zero-digit)) *DIGIT

If Section 5.2.2 correctly expresses the intent, then this seems the
right erratum.  Otherwise, there is an erratum in 5.2.2.

Adam, Jeff (and others): comments?  What was the intent when the text
was written?

Barry