IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4189)

Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Tue, 21 April 2015 15:29 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9DB51ACE69 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:29:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 I_HgwbRwm-jT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:29:50 -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 5DB971ACE85 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Yka36-0005G3-Mz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:25:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:25:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Yka36-0005G3-Mz@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1Yka30-0005Eh-Tx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:25:14 +0000
Received: from mail-la0-f47.google.com ([209.85.215.47]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1Yka30-0001sl-50 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:25:14 +0000
Received: by laat2 with SMTP id t2so153889284laa.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=j7crlaZMlgRPI+nBxW+sEySCd32Iy5LRXXnofmjftho=; b=LtleiKD9yAtTsn+o9HZxJpXglzLctUbrhyo7m9u53Anelcb82Ap38AHfZ1Muny3fk4 +kbKu070DiQDioQtsq3usZ9Wjjf+3mSUzXnVuWZlkQQE3Z71VilAbwED57TdW3uJISiS sSke0nqGBiA/fSJk/PjLhwK/YgL849hryz+0B/l1AUoFI3JGYBkWeCZBNwD5mTSbYTuT HqfQaZSLcYKOKAUaMlrOBNk65AuyEtMC36iN+uh/Ms9bAsEqEUPJHZZg2RJ6Gv3fXY8z Q1rP4pRStQF62ERrqbOs8s+Pkij5GjKpwmfrBuuCxbkiffwGozxj+g9fwwxDZj0Xvjqm ygwQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.202.234 with SMTP id kl10mr20382695lbc.51.1429629887218; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.161.196 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 08:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55364CFE.1000007@gmx.de>
References: <20141126195639.B3D5C181CE7@rfc-editor.org> <5476D0BC.70905@greenbytes.de> <CALaySJJh-9w2mnT9fV9dxaOJ_Tq=ipvV7nbNbEqY+g_6ppJjTg@mail.gmail.com> <723A86CD-6369-4A8A-B277-CBDA4439DCE9@gbiv.com> <55364CFE.1000007@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:24:47 -0500
Message-ID: <CACuKZqEUtPmph1QFgS8HAOvnxtpYm7eBNra9TwCCrOuNy0xGTg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Simon Schüppel <simon.schueppel@googlemail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.47; envelope-from=zhong.j.yu@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f47.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.696, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Yka30-0001sl-50 d0a127ff0c999526141179b2c98c93bc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4189)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACuKZqEUtPmph1QFgS8HAOvnxtpYm7eBNra9TwCCrOuNy0xGTg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/29362
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>

Another question about obs-fold before we proceed with the formal
definitions. Consider the following example

foo: bar<CRLF>
<SP><CRLF>
...

It won't be surprising if some parser mistakes the 2nd line as an
"empty line" that terminates the headers. Visually it *is* an empty
line.

In spirit, obs-fold should be followed by visible chars, otherwise
it's very confusing and problematic.

RFC 822 $3.2 appears to suggest the same thing, that obs-fold can only
appear between two non-empty segments.


Zhong

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status