Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)

[Alex Rousskov <[e-mail]>]

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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
>>
>> 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/
>