Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Wed, 17 August 2016 23:48 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 96E0412D151 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:48:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 c_c-lv2pLKMY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8177212D0B2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 16:48:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1baAV2-00050m-EI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:43:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:43:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1baAV2-00050m-EI@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1baAUx-0004zg-0d for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:43:51 +0000
Received: from mail.measurement-factory.com ([104.237.131.42]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1baAUv-000493-Au for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:43:50 +0000
Received: from [65.102.233.169] (unknown [65.102.233.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.measurement-factory.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F0EBE06C; Wed, 17 Aug 2016 23:43:26 +0000 (UTC)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
References: <20160413160504.63AB6180006@rfc-editor.org> <BC8FFB7E-CAC0-4BA2-958D-6256B20AA2F0@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Message-ID: <98a34e2a-3840-75a8-4c70-1551a693cca0@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:43:15 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BC8FFB7E-CAC0-4BA2-958D-6256B20AA2F0@mnot.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=104.237.131.42; envelope-from=rousskov@measurement-factory.com; helo=mail.measurement-factory.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.226, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1baAUv-000493-Au bab85a27d1d1e28895882a1215dcecea
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/98a34e2a-3840-75a8-4c70-1551a693cca0@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32297
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 04/19/2016 12:18 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:

> I *think* we've come to a place where there's agreement on accepting
> the errata, but with BWS replacing OWS throughout; i.e.:

> chunk-ext      = *( BWS  ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS  "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )

> Everyone OK with that?

There were no objections and two OKs (including mine).


> If so -- Alexey, can we just annotate the errata with that when it's
> accepted, or should this one be rejected and a new (smaller and
> correct from the start) one be filed?

It looks like this thread got stuck after that question and the errata
entry is still in the "Reported" state. I have just witnessed a yet
another developer being confused by this invisible syntax change. Mark,
could you please push this fix forward somehow?


Thank you,

Alex.