[http-state] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6265 (8242)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 06 January 2025 14:15 UTC
Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: http-state@ietf.org
Delivered-To: http-state@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from rfcpa.rfc-editor.org (unknown [167.172.21.234]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEECDC14F71B; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 06:15:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by rfcpa.rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 461) id 580ED1F5420; Mon, 6 Jan 2025 06:15:47 -0800 (PST)
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20250106141547.580ED1F5420@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 06:15:47 -0800
Message-ID-Hash: BMJQJTLHJ3V7JG23PHFBT5O4C4ERG2XL
X-Message-ID-Hash: BMJQJTLHJ3V7JG23PHFBT5O4C4ERG2XL
X-MailFrom: wwwrun@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-http-state.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: vladimir.gorej@gmail.com, abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu, http-state@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [http-state] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6265 (8242)
List-Id: Discuss HTTP State Management Mechanism <http-state.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-state/gpC3bR36-1G3Ggj6UD0e_imzIa0>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/http-state>
List-Help: <mailto:http-state-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:http-state-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:http-state@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:http-state-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:http-state-leave@ietf.org>
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6265, "HTTP State Management Mechanism". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8242 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Vladimír Gorej <vladimir.gorej@gmail.com> Section: 4.1.1 Original Text ------------- cookie-value = *cookie-octet / ( DQUOTE *cookie-octet DQUOTE ) Corrected Text -------------- cookie-value = ( DQUOTE *cookie-octet DQUOTE ) / *cookie-octet Notes ----- Many parsers process ABNF alternatives left-to-right and do not backtrack if an alternative partially matches but ultimately fails. This is why placing *cookie-octet first can cause issues. The quoted pattern ( DQUOTE *cookie-octet DQUOTE ) is more specific than the unquoted pattern *cookie-octet. Placing it first ensures that the parser prioritizes correctly. Quoted values are matched as a whole first. If the value isn’t quoted, the parser safely falls back to checking for unquoted *cookie-octet. Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6265 (draft-ietf-httpstate-cookie-23) -------------------------------------- Title : HTTP State Management Mechanism Publication Date : April 2011 Author(s) : A. Barth Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : HTTP State Management Mechanism Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [http-state] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6265 … RFC Errata System
- [http-state] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6… Madison Church