Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4682)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

REJECT. See subsequent discussion.


> On 4 May 2016, at 8:41 am, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7233,
> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7233&eid=4682
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Kannan Goundan <[e-mail]>
> 
> Section: 2.1
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> byte-range-set= 1#( byte-range-spec / suffix-byte-range-spec )
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> According to the "1#element" rule, the expansion would be:
> 
>    byte-range-set = ( byte-range-spec /
>        suffix-byte-range-spec ) *( OWS "," OWS ( byte-range-spec /
>        suffix-byte-range-spec ) )
> 
> But Appendix D has the definition:
> 
>    byte-range-set = *( "," OWS ) ( byte-range-spec /
>        suffix-byte-range-spec ) *( OWS "," [ OWS ( byte-range-spec /
>        suffix-byte-range-spec ) ] )
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> This is a followup to my original report: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7233&eid=4681>
> 
> My original report was incorrect because I didn't notice the difference between "1*element" and "1#element".  Thanks to Julian Reschke for pointing this out to me.
> 
> After looking up the "1#element" rule <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7230#section-7>, it looks like Section 2.1 and Appendix D are more similar, but not exactly equivalent.
> 
> The Appendix D version of the rule seems to allow extra commas and OWS.  
> I'm trying to write strict parsing code for this header and am not sure which definition to follow.
> 
> P.S. I hope I didn't screw up again.  I apologize for wasting your time (again) if I did.
> 
> 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. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7233 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-26)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests
> Publication Date    : June 2014
> Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., Y. Lafon, 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/