Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Yann Ylavic wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:09 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: >> Note in STATUS I've requested that you split the approved patch from >> security@ that seemed to be lost in long and winding patch versioning from >> the spaces accepted. A patc

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:09 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Note in STATUS I've requested that you split the approved patch from > security@ that seemed to be lost in long and winding patch versioning from > the spaces accepted. A patch should correct one thing, not several, it > makes these too

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

Note in STATUS I've requested that you split the approved patch from security@ that seemed to be lost in long and winding patch versioning from the spaces accepted. A patch should correct one thing, not several, it makes these too difficult to review when folks have a small window of free time. Y

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 7:22 PM, Jim Jagielski wrote: > Sooo in order to get 2.4.15 out, it would be nice to have > a patch :) Isn't the one proposed in STATUS suitable (section SHOWSTOPPERS)? It has been positively tested by Steffen in [1] and also passes the new framework tests from [2]. [

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

Sooo in order to get 2.4.15 out, it would be nice to have a patch :)

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On Jun 15, 2015 6:11 PM, "Roy T. Fielding" wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:33 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > > > Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to insert whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not appear there, either. > > Right, thi

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

> On Jun 15, 2015, at 9:33 AM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > > Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to insert > whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not appear > there, either. Right, this was a deliberate decision to reduce the number of inf

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

> > 1.3 (or 1.3-based servers) put whitespace there. > 1.3.x, 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and 2.4.x (for all released x so far) accepts whitespace > there. > We can't change that by default in a stable branch. > ++1

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On Jun 15, 2015 1:26 PM, "Graham Leggett" wrote: > > On 15 Jun 2015, at 7:00 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > > > 1.3 (or 1.3-based servers) put whitespace there. > > 1.3.x, 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and 2.4.x (for all released x so far) accepts whitespace there. > > We can't change that by default in a stable bran

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On 15 Jun 2015, at 7:00 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > 1.3 (or 1.3-based servers) put whitespace there. > 1.3.x, 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and 2.4.x (for all released x so far) accepts whitespace > there. > We can't change that by default in a stable branch. +1. We need to be liberal in what we accept. I don’t

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On 06/15/2015 07:00 PM, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, William A Rowe Jr > wrote: > > > 1.3 (or 1.3-based servers) put whitespace there. > 1.3.x, 2.0.x, 2.2.x, and 2.4.x (for all released x so far) accepts whitespace > there. > We can't ch

Re: TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 12:33 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote: > Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to > insert whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not > appear there, either. > > The spec seems unambiguous; > > chunk = chunk-size [ c

TWS ";" LWS permitted by RFC 7230 4.1.1? Apparently, no.

Reviewing the spec, I cannot find where Sambar server is permitted to insert whitespace. I further reviewed the ABNF appendix, and it does not appear there, either. The spec seems unambiguous; chunk = chunk-size [ chunk-ext ] CRLF chunk-data CRLF chunk-size = 1*HEXDI