Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 19 April 2016 06:23 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 0BF8212E168 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:23:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.917 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=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham 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 cmlVyzn2MmfT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:23:21 -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 1742812D8B1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:23:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1asOzs-0004N5-HN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:18:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:18:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1asOzs-0004N5-HN@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1asOzo-0004LM-DX for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:18:48 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1asOze-0004B7-Ed for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 06:18:47 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [120.149.194.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7983922E253; Tue, 19 Apr 2016 02:18:07 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20160413160504.63AB6180006@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 16:18:04 +1000
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, rousskov@measurement-factory.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BC8FFB7E-CAC0-4BA2-958D-6256B20AA2F0@mnot.net>
References: <20160413160504.63AB6180006@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.358, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1asOze-0004B7-Ed 98bd7879b1d5cc2a5ac0da0362ed05f4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4667)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/BC8FFB7E-CAC0-4BA2-958D-6256B20AA2F0@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31496
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>

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 <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> 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 <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
> 
> 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/