RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 4 records.

Status: Verified (3)

RFC 2978, "IANA Charset Registration Procedures", October 2000

Source of RFC: Legacy

Errata ID: 357

Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ned Freed
Date Reported: 2003-02-09
Report Text:

(1) All references in RFC 2978 to RFC 2184 should be replaced by RFC
    2231.  RFC 2231 obsoleted RFC 2184 before RFC 2978 was published.

(2) The fact that vertical bar and backslash characters are now
    excluded from charset names was a change from RFC 2278 that should
    have been noted in section 7.


Errata ID: 1912
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Ned Freed
Date Reported: 2009-10-13
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2018-09-21

Section 2.3 says:

mime-charset-chars = ALPHA / DIGIT /
            "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" /
            "'" / "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" /
            "`" / "{" / "}" / "~"
    

It should say:

mime-charset-chars = ALPHA / DIGIT /
            "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" /
            "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" / "`" /
            "{" / "}" / "~"

Notes:

RFC 2231 uses single quotes as delimiters around charset names. As such, single quote should have been excluded from the list of legal characters that can appear in a charset name.

Note that this Erratum was further updated by <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5433>
to make the list of characters even more restrictive.

Errata ID: 5433
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Julian Reschke
Date Reported: 2018-07-22
Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov
Date Verified: 2018-09-20

Section 2.3 says:

mime-charset-chars = ALPHA / DIGIT /
            "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" /
            "'" / "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" /
            "`" / "{" / "}" / "~"

It should say:

mime-charset-chars = ALPHA / DIGIT /
            "!" / "#" / "$" / "%" / "&" /
            "+" / "-" / "^" / "_" / "`" /
            "~" 

Notes:

HTTP (RFC 7231, Section 3.1.1.2) uses "token" in Accept-Charset. However, token does not allow for curly braces (see RFC 7230, Section 3.2.6). The IANA charset registry does not contain registered names with curly braces, so it would be good to disallow them completely.

(Note that the corrected ABNF incorporates the change for <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid1912>)

Alexey: Taking into consideration that this RFC is unlikely to be revised, I am approving this erratum, instead of insisting on a new version of the RFC that incorporates this change.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 2978, "IANA Charset Registration Procedures", October 2000

Source of RFC: Legacy

Errata ID: 6265
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: John Klensin
Date Reported: 2020-08-25
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2020-08-25

Section 3.1 says:

Proposed charsets are not formally registered and must not be used; the "x-" prefix specified in RFC 2045 can be used until registration is complete.

It should say:

Proposed charsets are not formally registered and must not be used.

Notes:

This section contains a recommendation for temporary use of charset names with an "X-" prefix. Given the problems those have caused and the general prohibition in RFC 6648, probably that provision should be considered updated and removed by 6648. Given that the review period is only two weeks, it would seem that there is little reason for for having proposed charsets floating around anyway.

Comment: Despite Alexey's 2018 comment on erratum 5433, perhaps it is time to create a revised document, not only to incorporate the syntax corrections of prior errata and to get rid of the "X-" advice, but to put in some text that actively discourages new registrations and uses of charsets that are not based on Unicode.

===== Verifier notes =====
This was not incorrect when the RFC was published, so it doesn't fit into "errata". That said, John is correct that (1) we should consider that BCP 178 has changed this as noted, and (2) we probably should do a document update. I am, therefore, marking this as "held for document update".

Report New Errata