Re: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6455 (3912)

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>wrote:

> That sounds like "Reject" to me, then, yes?
>
> Barry
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> > * RFC Errata System wrote:
> >>Original Text
> >>-------------
> >>    frame-payload-length    = ( %x00-7D )
> >>                            / ( %x7E frame-payload-length-16 )
> >>                            / ( %x7F frame-payload-length-63 )
> >>                            ; 7, 7+16, or 7+64 bits in length,
> >>                            ; respectively
> >>
> >>    frame-payload-length-16 = %x0000-FFFF ; 16 bits in length
> >>
> >>    frame-payload-length-63 = %x0000000000000000-7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
> >>                            ; 64 bits in length
> >
> >>Name of field and range is implying that it should be 63 bits in length,
> >>but documentation is saying 64 bits in 2 places.
> >
> > The intended interpretation is that lexically the field is 64 bit long
> > but the value space is constrained to 63 bit (so the length can be re-
> > presented in a 64 signed integer, i.e. one bit is always zero). It is a
> > bit unconventional to use ABNF like this, but it is explained in §5.2.
>

Agreed. This text clearly states that.

> If 127, the
> following 8 bytes interpreted as a 64-bit unsigned integer (the
> most significant bit MUST be 0) are the payload length.

This 63 is confusing but as we have the comment "; 64 bits in length" at
the next line and this clear definition in Section 5.2, IMO, we don't need
to bother publishing an errata.

> > --
> > Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> > Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> > 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> hybi mailing list
> hybi@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi
>