[Errata Verified] RFC7230 (4825)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 07 October 2016 20:34 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0560E12967A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.917 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=-2.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id goOE4LqxzxmD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 645771295CE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:33:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bsbmP-0002iM-4s for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:30:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:30:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bsbmP-0002iM-4s@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1bsbmK-0008DQ-EP for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:30:00 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1bsbmI-0006Nn-1J for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:29:59 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 926BAB80A0E; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:29:29 -0700 (PDT)
To: rousskov@measurement-factory.com, fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20161007202929.926BAB80A0E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 13:29:29 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfc-editor.org; helo=rfc-editor.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.020, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.676, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bsbmI-0006Nn-1J ab3a689961842b54de4ef9d981a9e176
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Verified] RFC7230 (4825)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161007202929.926BAB80A0E@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32525
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>

The following errata report has been verified for RFC7230,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". 

You may review the report below and at:

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date Reported: 2016-04-13
Verified by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG)

Section: Appendix B

Original Text
chunk-ext      = *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] )

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

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:

      0; ieof\r\n\r\n

IMHO, RFC 7230 should either allow BWS 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 BWS _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.

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