[Errata Verified] RFC7230 (4667)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 07 October 2016 20:35 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 C6EED1293EB
for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:35:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.917
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id VFMoXNHLnuFz
for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:35:08 -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 AE65712941C
for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>;
Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:35:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>)
id 1bsbnh-00063u-Jf
for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:31:25 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:31:25 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bsbnh-00063u-Jf@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41])
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 1bsbne-00062j-7Q
for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:31:22 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49])
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 1bsbnc-0006Vl-Pg
for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Oct 2016 20:31:21 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30)
id F0D97B80A0C; Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:30:52 -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: <20161007203052.F0D97B80A0C@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:30:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=4.31.198.49; 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=0.994, 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 1bsbnc-0006Vl-Pg 6aa793b75e857f26bdc15a86b1b97c97
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Verified] RFC7230 (4667)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161007203052.F0D97B80A0C@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32526
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: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4667 -------------------------------------- Status: Verified Type: Technical Reported by: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com> Date Reported: 2016-04-13 Verified by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG) Section: 4.1.1 Original Text ------------- chunk-ext = *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] ) Corrected Text -------------- chunk-ext = *( BWS ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS "=" BWS 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 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
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alexey Melnikov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Amos Jeffries
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Willy Tarreau
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Alex Rousskov
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667) Willy Tarreau
- [Errata Verified] RFC7230 (4667) RFC Errata System