IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4189)

Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com> Sat, 07 February 2015 13:02 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 862541A00FA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 05:02:10 -0800 (PST)
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 qaa21LmaZSwQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 05:02:08 -0800 (PST)
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 C02161A036C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 05:02:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YK4y1-0001wk-2m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:58:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:58:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YK4y1-0001wk-2m@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1YK4xs-0001vR-UE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:58:24 +0000
Received: from mail-oi0-f43.google.com ([209.85.218.43]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>) id 1YK4xr-0005hq-Lb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 12:58:24 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f43.google.com with SMTP id z81so16118521oif.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:57:57 -0800 (PST)
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=+fNRC5DW1Et0sGrTzW9LF18i9RU+3iaWPPK1KpFqa2o=; b=ObDpRf0gqzhxSKYr2btbneorPrGzdMKY+KzMdPv7FTHuI165cRJ3w9V0JRy9YE9Bqm kEKA3nuvSCyiFnoOXlJUvUzYhyzWzL+qTu0OdGebGszq+v+QcAb4ShczhjcLWUrJiv72 FmZjmZZbSvraDMTWuSDWZSl8pqnh1z/Tu3OH881phl4N4/QbtdRjh9lY5A46LF2pQbK6 XE1mi8sfxyb24dSN2BhBoWbNM9x2GFF9/q6QxhB78DtlNdBA+PLy2v33ggUCLb4IfMWs oyNnVUpuydHb3a++CPWlQWcddpT/DezGSSNe5j89uMwzfyX4Y/M8s68+ejTMfymEKrZA seGA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.120.230 with SMTP id lf6mr5713810obb.39.1423313877548; Sat, 07 Feb 2015 04:57:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.76.5.132 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Feb 2015 04:57:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <723A86CD-6369-4A8A-B277-CBDA4439DCE9@gbiv.com>
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>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2015 06:57:57 -0600
Message-ID: <CACuKZqH5gPk-Mx987iAcaXniYiui6BAJ46S1FXeneJuNfTh+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, simon.schueppel@googlemail.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.218.43; envelope-from=zhong.j.yu@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.704, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YK4xr-0005hq-Lb c24730809e8df66a8db3c60cca493698
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4189)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CACuKZqH5gPk-Mx987iAcaXniYiui6BAJ46S1FXeneJuNfTh+Bw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28776
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 Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:
> It should be verified as technical, but (like Julian) I think the
> fix should be limited to field-content and obs-fold:
>
> Section: 3.2
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>      field-name     = token
>      field-value    = *( field-content / obs-fold )
>      field-content  = field-vchar [ 1*( SP / HTAB ) field-vchar ]
>      field-vchar    = VCHAR / obs-text
>
>      obs-fold       = CRLF 1*( SP / HTAB )
>                     ; obsolete line folding
>                     ; see Section 3.2.4
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>      field-name     = token
>      field-value    = *( field-content / obs-fold )
>      field-content  = field-vchar [ 1*( SP / HTAB / field-vchar ) field-vchar ]
>      field-vchar    = VCHAR / obs-text
>
>      obs-fold       = OWS CRLF RWS
>                     ; obsolete line folding
>                     ; see Section 3.2.4
>
> This fixes the problem examples and keeps obs-fold separate from field-content.
> It would be best if some other folks could confirm the above before making
> the errata official.
>
> ....Roy
>
>

Roy's proposal still leaves leading/trailing obs-folds inside
field-value, which Simon's proposal tries to address.

The original text, which appears more complicated than necessary, was
probably trying to trim white spaces as well from core elements, a
practice that's consistently followed throughout the RFC.

Zhong Yu

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