Re: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (5453)

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 08 August 2018 17:26 UTC

To: Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, hybi@ietf.org, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, ifette+ietf@google.com, Alexey.Melnikov@isode.com, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com, Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com
References: <20180808134110.41FF7B80B0C@rfc-editor.org> <711770E5-8B23-4B32-BABE-3B0BE5EEFA31@warmcat.com>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <3f2f1925-e518-4b46-c97a-0404dd366163@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2018 19:26:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <711770E5-8B23-4B32-BABE-3B0BE5EEFA31@warmcat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/3jHV2Re2xNXVCTEntYP9Hz8eSag>
Subject: Re: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (5453)
Precedence: list

On 2018-08-08 18:49, Andy Green wrote:
> 
> 
> On August 8, 2018 9:41:10 PM GMT+08:00, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6455,
>> "The WebSocket Protocol".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5453
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
>>
>> Section: 4.1
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>    2.  If the response lacks an |Upgrade| header field or the |Upgrade|
>>        header field contains a value that is not an ASCII case-
>>        insensitive match for the value "websocket", the client MUST
>>        _Fail the WebSocket Connection_.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>    2.  If the response lacks an |Upgrade| header field or the |Upgrade|
>>        header field contains a value that does not match "WebSocket",
>>        the client MUST _Fail the WebSocket Connection_.
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> HTTP upgrade tokens are case-sensitive, and the token registered by RFC
>> 6455 is "WebSocket" (see
>> <https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-upgrade-tokens/http-upgrade-tokens.xhtml>).
>> Examples should be adjusted accordingly.
> 
> I didn't see where registry entries are defined to be case sensitive.  RFC7230 8.6.1 doesn't seem to tell it either.
> ...

It's defined to be a token, and that matches case-sensitively. See also 
<https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/8>.

> Since this is a 'technical issue' in the sense the conflict is between RFC6455 text and the house rules of the registry, it can also be solved by the registry adding a note the "WebSockets" entry covers all case variations, can't it?  It's not like with the 5 or whatever entries in the registry to date, anyone was about to register 'weBsocKets'.  Or the registry can clearly state that all entries cover all case variations...
> ...

As this is "first come first serve", there really is no review process 
we can rely on...

In any case, it probably would be wise to register "websockets" as well, 
so that at least the examples become compliant.

Best regards, Julian

[hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (5453) RFC Errata System
Re: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (5… Andy Green
Re: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (5… Julian Reschke