[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4436)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 07 August 2015 06:38 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489EB1B372A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:38:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 TEnaBzXT2yaT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 923FE1B325C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:38:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZNbE3-0001Pu-80 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:33:55 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:33:55 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZNbE3-0001Pu-80@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1ZNbDx-0001P4-8I for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:33:49 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1ZNbDt-0001ki-2f for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 06:33:48 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9E1E218020A; Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, barryleiba@computer.org, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aron.duby@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20150807062858.9E1E218020A@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 23:28:58 -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=-7.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.227, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.102, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1ZNbDt-0001ki-2f edcac30c137ca280a02e74171ba4407f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4436)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20150807062858.9E1E218020A@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30064
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: <http://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 RFC7231,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7231&eid=4436

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Aron Duby <aron.duby@gmail.com>

Section: 4.3.5

Original Text
-------------
If a DELETE method is successfully applied, the origin server SHOULD
send a 202 (Accepted) status code if the action will likely succeed
but has not yet been enacted, a 204 (No Content) status code if the
action has been enacted and no further information is to be supplied,
or a 200 (OK) status code if the action has been enacted and the
response message includes a representation describing the status.

Corrected Text
--------------
If a DELETE method is successfully applied, the origin server SHOULD
send a 202 (Accepted) status code if the action will likely succeed
but has not yet been enacted; a 204 (No Content) status code if the
action has been enacted and no further information is to be supplied;
or a 200 (OK) status code if the action has been enacted and the
response message includes a representation describing the status.

Notes
-----
Using a semicolon creates a stronger delineation of the different options. If you are just quickly trying to parse what status to return if the delete hasn't happened yet and you quickly read "has not yet been enacted, a 204 (No Content)" you could incorrectly read that as return a 204. The semicolon makes it more obvious that "enacted" is the end of that thought and to scan backwards where as the comma in this instance requires knowing the structure of the rest of the paragraph.

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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7231 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content
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