Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7109)

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

Am 31.08.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Julian Reschke:
> Am 31.08.2022 um 18:50 schrieb RFC Errata System:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9110,
>> "HTTP Semantics".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7109
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: Gary Wilson Jr. <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Section: 15.4.9
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>     The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target
>>     resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future
>>     references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>     The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target
>>     resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future
>>     references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs.
>>     The user agent MUST NOT change the request method if it performs
>>     an automatic redirection to that URI.
>>
>> and/or add note as is present in RFC 7538, e.g.:
>>
>>        Note: This status code is similar to 301 (Moved Permanently)
>>        (Section 15.4.2), except that it does not allow changing
>>        the request method from POST to GET.
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> The current text in this section for 308 Permanent Redirect does not 
>> include any mention of the user agent not changing the request method. 
>> I am suggesting that similar wording be used as in 15.4.8.  307 
>> Temporary Redirect and/or a note added similar to the one present in 
>> RFC 7538 but excluded from this section's current text. Whichever is 
>> chosen, it would be good to make the wording/notes consistent across 
>> both the 307 and 308 status code sections.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> 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
> 
> The text is entirely correct and consistent with what the spec says 
> about code 307. 301 and 302 are the exceptions and thus carry notes 
> about potential method rewriting.
> 
> Best regards, Julian

Dear RFC Editor,

could you please close this erratum as "rejected"?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany
Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782