On Jul 31, 2016 3:17 AM, "Yann Ylavic" <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 12:56 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote: > > On Jul 30, 2016 4:36 PM, "Yann Ylavic" <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 11:22 PM, Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 6:24 PM, <wr...@apache.org> wrote: > >> >> Author: wrowe > >> >> Date: Fri Jul 29 16:24:14 2016 > >> >> New Revision: 1754548 > >> >> > >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1754548&view=rev > >> >> Log: > >> >> Strictly observe spec on obs-fold > >> >> > >> >> Modified: > >> >> httpd/httpd/trunk/server/protocol.c > >> > [] > >> >> > >> >> memcpy(last_field + last_len, field, len +1); /* +1 > >> >> for nul */ > >> >> + /* Replace obs-fold w/ SP per RFC 7230 3.2.4 */ > >> >> + if (conf->http_conformance & > >> >> AP_HTTP_CONFORMANCE_STRICT) { > >> >> + last_field[last_len] = ' '; > >> >> + } > >> > > >> > The wording is: > >> > A user agent that receives an obs-fold in a response message that is > >> > not within a message/http container MUST replace each received > >> > obs-fold with one or more SP octets prior to interpreting the field > >> > value. > >> > >> Please forget the "user agent" part, the wording for > >> server/proxy/gateway is the same though, from "MUST replace each > >> received..." > >> > >> > > >> > Not sure if it means that one HTAB or more than one SP/HTAB of each > >> > obs-fold should be replaced by a single SP (that's what I think), or > >> > if it's that all HTAB should be replaced by a SP (keeping as many > >> > "spaces"). > >> > > >> > In any case the above code will replace one HTAB only, we probably > >> > need a loop here. > >> > > >> >> last_len += len; > >> >> folded = 1; > >> >> } > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Yann. > > > > So the obs-fold itself consists of CR LF [ SP | TAB ] > > obs-fold = CRLF 1*( SP / HTAB ) > > So all the trailing SP/HTAB are part of obs-fold IMHO. > Should we replace all of them (plus the CRLF) with a single SP or with > as many SP?
Hmmm... Good point. Advancing over them in our HTTP_STRICT mode seems best, if we have a consensus on this.
