* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

Ticket #165 (closed design: fixed)

Opened 5 years ago

Last modified 2 years ago

Case-sensitivity of HTTP-date

Reported by: julian.reschke@gmx.de Owned by: fielding@gbiv.com
Priority: urgent Milestone: 10
Component: p1-messaging Severity: Active WG Document
Keywords: Cc:
Origin: http://www.w3.org/mid/001601c9d74b$10d40820$327c1860$@org

Description

RFC 2616, Section 3.3.1 is ambiguous with respect to *parsing* requirements for HTTP dates.

It says:

"HTTP-date is case sensitive and MUST NOT include additional LWS beyond that specifically included as SP in the grammar."

but then also points out:

"Note: Recipients of date values are encouraged to be robust in accepting date values that may have been sent by non-HTTP applications, as is sometimes the case when retrieving or posting messages via proxies/gateways to SMTP or NNTP."

Brian Smith points out that the dates are case-insensitive in SMPT and NNTP.

"...are encouraged..." isn't using BCP 14 terminology. So is this a SHOULD-level requirement? A MAY?

If it is a SHOULD, HTTPbis will need to rephrase the statement about case-insensitivity, and adjust the ABNF which in the meanwhile uses case-sensitive day and month names.

Attachments

i165.diff (1.0 KB) - added by julian.reschke@gmx.de 4 years ago.
Proposed patch for part 1.

Change History

comment:1 Changed 5 years ago by fielding@gbiv.com

  • Owner set to fielding@gbiv.com
  • Priority set to urgent
  • Status changed from new to assigned
  • Milestone changed from unassigned to 08

It is not ambiguous to require one thing and suggest reasonable error handling.

comment:2 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 08 to 09

comment:3 Changed 5 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Milestone changed from 09 to 10

comment:4 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Proposal:

leave ABNF as it is

say "clients are REQUIRED" instead of "encouraged"

Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

Proposed patch for part 1.

comment:5 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

From [807]:

Clarify that recipients SHOULD parse dates case-insensitively (see #165)

comment:6 Changed 4 years ago by julian.reschke@gmx.de

  • Status changed from assigned to closed
  • Resolution set to incorporated

comment:7 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Resolution incorporated deleted

comment:8 Changed 4 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Status changed from reopened to closed
  • Resolution set to fixed

comment:9 Changed 2 years ago by mnot@pobox.com

  • Severity changed from Candidate WG Document to Active WG Document
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.