[http-state] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6265 (8242)

Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com> Mon, 06 January 2025 17:42 UTC

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51\))
From: Madison Church <mchurch@amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250106141547.580ED1F5420@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2025 11:41:58 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6618AF47-084F-4E21-97ED-C8DD70E24A93@amsl.com>
References: <20250106141547.580ED1F5420@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
To: Orie Steele <orie@transmute.industries>, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <superuser@gmail.com>
Message-ID-Hash: 3OCK675O7P7REAGQN5O3Q2ZMQC6ECPS5
CC: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, vladimir.gorej@gmail.com, abarth@eecs.berkeley.edu, http-state@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Subject: [http-state] Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC6265 (8242)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/http-state/qYKb66srjtQfEDTq5iz-6IUs5_M>

Hi Murray and Orie,

We are unable to verify this erratum that the submitter marked as editorial, so we changed the Type to “Technical”. As Stream Approver, please review and set the Status and Type accordingly (see the definitions at https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/) 

Note that we are sending this to both of you as ADs of the ART Area as the httpstate WG has concluded.

You may review the report at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8242 

Information on how to verify errata reports can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-verify/ 

Further information on errata can be found at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php. 

Thank you, 
RFC Editor/mc

> On Jan 6, 2025, at 8:15 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 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