> On Aug 3, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Jacob Champion <champio...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 07/31/2016 09:18 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: >>> So all the trailing SP/HTAB are part of obs-fold IMHO. >>> Should we replace all of them (plus the CRLF) with a single SP or with >>> as many SP? >> >> Hmmm... Good point. Advancing over them in our HTTP_STRICT mode seems >> best, if we have a consensus on this. > > Agreed that we should process all the obs-fold whitespace, and not just one > byte. > > Replacing each byte with a separate space (as opposed to condensing into a > single space) *might* help prevent adversaries from playing games with header > length checks in more complicated/layered systems. That's probably a stretch > though. And if we consume the CRLF in a different layer of logic, adding on > two spaces just to keep everything "consistent" may also be a stretch. I'm > not feeling strongly either way.
What the spec is trying to say is that we can either replace all those bytes with a single SP (semantically speaking they are the same) or we we can replace them all with a sequence of SP (still the same, but doesn't require splitting or recomposing the buffer). > >> > So the obs-fold itself consists of CR LF [ SP | TAB ] > >> > >> obs-fold = CRLF 1*( SP / HTAB ) > >> > > Note that this section of the spec has Errata associated with it; I'm reading > through the conversation [1] and it's seeming like they *may* want to treat > OWS preceding the CRLF as part of the obs-fold as well. I don't know what our > position is on adopting pieces of Errata that have been Held for Document > Update. No, that is just an ABNF issue for matching purposes. We don't use it. ....Roy
