[Errata Verified] RFC9110 (7138)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 09 November 2022 08:59 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 84896C1594A3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 00:59:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.659
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.659 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LJ6wiStgTrPM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 00:59:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA339C14CE20 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 00:59:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1osgXY-00BluR-Q8 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:34:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:34:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1osgXY-00BluR-Q8@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1osgXW-00Blrj-Ob for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:34:30 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([50.223.129.200] helo=rfcpa.amsl.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1osgXV-008dlE-AT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 08:34:30 +0000
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id D982B1FD20; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 00:34:16 -0800 (PST)
To: yousouf.taghzouti@emse.fr, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iana@iana.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221109083416.D982B1FD20@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 00:34:16 -0800
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=50.223.129.200; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com; helo=rfcpa.amsl.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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: titan.w3.org 1osgXV-008dlE-AT 317d24aaa7c07e2e146731bdd4a113f4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Verified] RFC9110 (7138)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20221109083416.D982B1FD20@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40547
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 verified for RFC9110,
"HTTP Semantics". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7138

--------------------------------------
Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported by: Yousouf Taghzouti <yousouf.taghzouti@emse.fr>
Date Reported: 2022-09-23
Verified by: Francesca Palombini (IESG)

Section: 12.5.1

Original Text
-------------
The media type quality factor associated with a given type is 
determined by finding the media range with the highest precedence 
that matches the type. For example,

Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/plain;q=0.7, text/plain;format=flowed,
       text/plain;format=fixed;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5

would cause the following values to be associated:

Table 5: 

Media Type	                Quality Value
text/plain;format=flowed	      1
text/plain	                     0.7
text/html	                     0.3
image/jpeg	                     0.5
text/plain;format=fixed	             0.4
text/html;level=3	             0.7

Corrected Text
--------------
The media type quality factor associated with a given type is 
determined by finding the media range with the highest precedence 
that matches the type. For example,

Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/plain;q=0.7, text/plain;format=flowed,
       text/plain;format=fixed;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5

would cause the following values to be associated:

Table 5: 

Media Type	                Quality Value
text/plain;format=flowed	      1
text/plain	                     0.7
text/html	                     0.3
image/jpeg	                     0.5
text/plain;format=fixed	             0.4
text/html;level=3	             0.3

Notes
-----
To illustrate how the media type quality factor associated with a given type is determined, the following example is given: 

Accept: text/*;q=0.3, text/plain;q=0.7, text/plain;format=flowed, text/plain;format=fixed;q=0.4, */*;q=0.5

The last row of the result table (table 5) presenting the values to be associated cannot be deduced (MediaType: text/html;level=3, Quality Value: 0.7), since only "text/*;q=0.3" and "*/*;q=0.5" are possible values and as explained in the RFC "text/*;q=0.3" should take precedence. 

In section 5.3.2 of RFC7231, a similar example is given, where the last row of the table is correct (text/html;level=3 | 0.7) since in that example the accept header contains (text/html;q=0.7).

--------------------------------------
RFC9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19)
--------------------------------------
Title               : HTTP Semantics
Publication Date    : June 2022
Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
Category            : INTERNET STANDARD
Source              : HTTP
Area                : Applications and Real-Time
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG