[Errata Rejected] RFC7230 (5623)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 15 April 2019 14:07 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3282120375 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:07:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3s_3NieMNgWt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:07:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0119E1200B1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:07:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hG2Fe-0007hu-PT for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:06:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:06:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hG2Fe-0007hu-PT@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1hG2Fd-0007h5-9T for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:06:25 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1hG2FX-0007D6-SK for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 14:06:25 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 45FE7B80890; Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:05:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: a.abfalterer@gmail.com, fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190415140552.45FE7B80890@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 07:05:52 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=4.31.198.49; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfc-editor.org; helo=rfc-editor.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.998, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1hG2FX-0007D6-SK cf9c516ca2f77247458c2a6120ec5541
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC7230 (5623)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20190415140552.45FE7B80890@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36531
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7230, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5623 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: Armin Abfalterer <a.abfalterer@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2019-02-05 Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG) Section: 2.7 Original Text ------------- absolute-URI = <absolute-URI, see [RFC3986], Section 4.3> Corrected Text -------------- Notes ----- RFC3986 defines "absolute-URI" very openly, especially regarding to "hier-part": absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] hier-part = "//" authority path-abempty / path-absolute / path-rootless / path-empty The impact is reflected in RFC 7231 in the definition of the header fields Referer and Content-Location. absolute-URI = <absolute-URI, see [RFC7230], Section 2.7> Thus, following examples of header values are considered valid Referer: https:foo/bar Referer: https:/foo Referer: https:/ Referer: foo:/ I'd suggest to define "hier-part" (but also "scheme") more strictly. --VERIFIER NOTES-- As per WG discussion: <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2019JanMar/0130.html> -------------------------------------- RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26) -------------------------------------- Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing Publication Date : June 2014 Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Errata Rejected] RFC7230 (5623) RFC Errata System