Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)

Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Tue, 19 April 2016 14:27 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 7DC1F12D0F5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:27:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.917 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=-0.996, 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 0ZGaElfUg72q for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:27:57 -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 B1DEB12E59D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1asWZ3-0007h9-KR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:23:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:23:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1asWZ3-0007h9-KR@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) 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 1asWZ0-0007fk-2Z for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:23:38 +0000
Received: from mail.measurement-factory.com ([104.237.131.42]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>) id 1asWYx-0005xl-Vq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:23:37 +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 71E45E076; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:23:12 +0000 (UTC)
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20160413160504.63AB6180006@rfc-editor.org> <BC8FFB7E-CAC0-4BA2-958D-6256B20AA2F0@mnot.net>
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Message-ID: <57163F29.1000505@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:22:33 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
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=-5.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.002, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1asWYx-0005xl-Vq 6ddd83233311e047f5db4bdc1764b6f2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/57163F29.1000505@measurement-factory.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31504
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?

FWIW, I am OK with that "better BWS than nothing" solution.


Thank you,

Alex.



>> On 14 Apr 2016, at 2:05 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>>
>> The following errata report has been submitted 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_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4667
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
>>
>> Section: 4.1.1
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> chunk-ext      = *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] )
>>
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> chunk-ext      = *( ";" OWS chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] )
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The infamous "implicit *LWS" syntax rule in RFC 2616 allowed whitespace between ";" and chunk-ext-name in chunk-ext. Some HTTP agents generate that whitespace. In my experience, HTTP agents that can parse chunk extensions usually can handle that whitespace. Moreover, ICAP, which generally relies on HTTP/1 for its message syntax, uses that whitespace when defining the "ieof" chunk extension in RFC 3507 Section 4.5:
>>
>>      \r\n
>>      0; ieof\r\n\r\n
>>
>> IMHO, RFC 7230 should either allow OWS before chunk-ext-name or at the very least explicitly document the HTTP/1 syntax change and its effect on parsers used for both ICAP and HTTP/1 messages (a very common case for ICAP-supporting HTTP intermediaries and ICAP services).
>>
>> I also recommend adding BWS around "=", for consistency and RFC 2616 backward compatibility reasons. HTTPbis RFCs already do that for transfer-parameter and auth-param that have similar syntax.
>>
>> Please also consider adding OWS _before_ ";" for consistency and RFC 2616 backward compatibility reasons. HTTPbis RFCs already do that for transfer-extension, accept-ext,  t-ranking, and other constructs with similar syntax.
>>
>> If all of the above suggestions are applied, the final syntax becomes:
>>
>> chunk-ext      = *( OWS  ";" OWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS  "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )
>>
>> Instructions:
>> -------------
>> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
>> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
>> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG)
>> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>