Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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?

If so -- Alexey, can we just annotate the errata with that when it's accepted, or should this one be rejected and a new (smaller and correct from the start) one be filed?

Regards,


> 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/