RFC 7230, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", June 2014
Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC 9110 RFC 9112Source of RFC: httpbis (app)
See Also: RFC 7230 w/ inline errata
Errata ID: 4667
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Alex Rousskov
Date Reported: 2016-04-13
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2016-10-07
Section 4.1.1 says:
chunk-ext = *( ";" chunk-ext-name [ "=" chunk-ext-val ] )
It should say:
chunk-ext = *( BWS ";" BWS chunk-ext-name [ BWS "=" BWS chunk-ext-val ] )
The infamous "implicit *LWS" syntax rule in RFC 2616 allowed whitespace between
";" and chunk-ext-name in chunk-ext. Some HTTP agents generate that whitespace.
In my experience, HTTP agents that can parse chunk extensions usually can handle
that whitespace. Moreover, ICAP, which generally relies on HTTP/1 for its message
syntax, uses that whitespace when defining the "ieof" chunk extension in RFC 3507
IMHO, RFC 7230 should either allow BWS before chunk-ext-name or at the very least
explicitly document the HTTP/1 syntax change and its effect on parsers used for both
ICAP and HTTP/1 messages (a very common case for ICAP-supporting HTTP
intermediaries and ICAP services).
I also recommend adding BWS around "=", for consistency and RFC 2616 backward
compatibility reasons. HTTPbis RFCs already do that for transfer-parameter and
auth-param that have similar syntax.
Please also consider adding BWS _before_ ";" for consistency and RFC 2616 backward
compatibility reasons. HTTPbis RFCs already do that for transfer-extension,
accept-ext, t-ranking, and other constructs with similar syntax.