RFC Errata
Found 3 records.
Status: Verified (1)
RFC 6266, "Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)", June 2011
Source of RFC: httpbis (wit)
Errata ID: 3475
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Saašha Metsärantala
Date Reported: 2013-02-02
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2013-02-03
In Appendix B:
Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "quoted-date-time", and "size".
It should say:
Section 2 of [RFC2183] defines several additional disposition parameters: "creation-date", "modification-date", "read-date", and "size".
Notes:
Section 2 of RFC 2183 defines "quoted-date-time", but it is not a disposition parameter.
Status: Rejected (2)
RFC 6266, "Use of the Content-Disposition Header Field in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP)", June 2011
Source of RFC: httpbis (wit)
Errata ID: 5383
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Magnar Ovedal Myrtveit
Date Reported: 2018-06-07
Rejected by: Francesca Palombini
Date Rejected: 2022-11-09
Section 4.1 says:
disp-ext-parm = token "=" value | ext-token "=" ext-value ext-token = <the characters in token, followed by "*"> Defined in [RFC2616]: token = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> value = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6> ; token | quoted-string Defined in [RFC5987]: ext-value = <ext-value, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2>
It should say:
disp-ext-parm = parmname "=" value | ext-parmname "=" ext-value ext-parmname = <the characters in parmname, followed by "*"> Defined in [RFC2616]: quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> value = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6> ; token | quoted-string Defined in [RFC5987]: parmname = <parmname, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2> ext-value = <ext-value, defined in [RFC5987], Section 3.2>
Notes:
RFC 5987, Section 3.2.1, modifies the grammar from RFC 2616. These modifications should be used in RFC 6266. If not, it is impossible to determine whether a parameter should be a value or an ext-value based on the parameter name, since "*" is a valid character in token.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The extended syntax is currently defined only for "filename", and any new parameter using the extended syntax would need to be defined in a document extending RFC 6266.
Errata ID: 3325
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT
Reported By: Jack Bates
Date Reported: 2012-08-18
Rejected by: Barry Leiba
Date Rejected: 2012-08-18
Section 4.1 says:
content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":" disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm ) disposition-type = "inline" | "attachment" | disp-ext-type ; case-insensitive disp-ext-type = token disposition-parm = filename-parm | disp-ext-parm filename-parm = "filename" "=" value | "filename*" "=" ext-value disp-ext-parm = token "=" value | ext-token "=" ext-value ext-token = <the characters in token, followed by "*"> Defined in [RFC2616]: token = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> value = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6> ; token | quoted-string
It should say:
content-disposition = "Content-Disposition" ":" disposition-type *( ";" disposition-parm ) disposition-type = "inline" / "attachment" / disp-ext-type ; case-insensitive disp-ext-type = token disposition-parm = filename-parm / disp-ext-parm filename-parm = "filename" "=" value / "filename*" "=" ext-value disp-ext-parm = token "=" value / ext-token "=" ext-value ext-token = <the characters in token, followed by "*"> Defined in [RFC2616]: token = <token, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> quoted-string = <quoted-string, defined in [RFC2616], Section 2.2> value = <value, defined in [RFC2616], Section 3.6> ; token / quoted-string
Notes:
The grammar in the original text uses "|" to express alternation, but I think that only "/" is valid according to RFC 5234
Verifier notes: The grammar in 6266 is from RFC 2616, not from 5234. 6266 is correct as it stands.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The grammar in 6266 is from RFC 2616, not from 5234. This text is correct as it stands.