[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7232 (6080)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 08 April 2020 13:43 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CCAF3A0C23 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.653
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.653 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6rxUjr7XlcEY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:43:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B407A3A0C20 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jMAw2-0002QA-Sd for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:40:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:40:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jMAw2-0002QA-Sd@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1jMAw0-0002PL-Cm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:40:04 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1jMAvx-0007EB-8b for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:40:04 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 3D3B9F4071F; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:39:37 -0700 (PDT)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, mnot@mnot.net, tpauly@apple.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: 1983-01-06@gmx.net, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20200408133937.3D3B9F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 06:39:37 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=4.31.198.49; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfc-editor.org; helo=rfc-editor.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jMAvx-0007EB-8b fe1753b4c4472273a6c1a356f144e098
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7232 (6080)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20200408133937.3D3B9F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37495
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7232, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6080 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Michael Osipov <1983-01-06@gmx.net> Section: 3.2 Original Text ------------- If-None-Match can also be used with a value of "*" to prevent an unsafe request method (e.g., PUT) from inadvertently modifying an existing representation of the target resource when the client believes that the resource does not have a current representation (Section 4.2.1 of [RFC7231]). This is a variation on the "lost update" problem that might arise if more than one client attempts to create an initial representation for the target resource. Corrected Text -------------- Notes ----- Please clarify what is supposed to happen when If-None-Match is used with unsafe methods and the value is NOT "*". Should the server respond with BAD_REQUEST? Instructions: ------------- This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC7232 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p4-conditional-26) -------------------------------------- Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests Publication Date : June 2014 Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7232 (6080) RFC Errata System