Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779)
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Fri, 19 August 2016 16:30 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 06C3212B009 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.268
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.268 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gbiv.com
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 sHKnyLQjiotO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:30:33 -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 33E52127071 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bamcd-0007Ck-Mq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:26:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:26:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bamcd-0007Ck-Mq@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 <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1bamcU-0007Ay-Hd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:26:10 +0000
Received: from sub5.mail.dreamhost.com ([208.113.200.129] helo=homiemail-a123.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.1:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1bamcR-0003Vy-WB for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 16:26:09 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a123.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a123.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A4C76000C302; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=content-type :mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=Xde9jzetMnWaQSlnfUqDDRVk8Ws=; b=P74R5PIo6o4GFLrBKhZ5W/QeyWjK gUhXciZRzSHslEKeXcD9qCjSxoojJ2/viMI4hkwz2cxI/KccjMY6LybyWd4B5zSK zIC6FM5voFmpCrSHhdk/iOYjPS/lKRrPILYbZtFudW2n3Ki/cA864o58G71mGD+r tj63pT/FTeDcdSs=
Received: from [192.168.1.7] (ip68-228-71-159.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.71.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a123.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C2B416000C301; Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\))
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <01274D7C-1424-4549-B32C-96B6F091FD56@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:25:43 -0700
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, pmcmanus@mozilla.com, wrowe@rowe-clan.net, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EF08ABC7-F23D-4EDC-BCF4-3A9562A14132@gbiv.com>
References: <20160818094247.84BAFB812C2@rfc-editor.org> <01274D7C-1424-4549-B32C-96B6F091FD56@mnot.net>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.113.200.129; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a123.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.316, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bamcR-0003Vy-WB 1049ddd591ce816b212082c06147a61d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/EF08ABC7-F23D-4EDC-BCF4-3A9562A14132@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32330
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>
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > This seems like an editorial improvement; the current text is reasonably clear (especially since this is just a summary of changes, not normative text). > > HOLD FOR UPDATE, I think. Isn't that pointless? I mean, the entire section should be removed on the next update. The existing text is correct in relation to the change from 2616. Making it more specific would have been better, but that doesn't qualify as errata. ....Roy > > Cheers, > >> On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:42 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: >> >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230, >> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4779 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Editorial >> Reported by: William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> >> >> Section: A.2. >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header fields and the reason >> phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was >> removed). (Section 3.2.6) >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header field values and the reason >> phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was >> removed). (Section 3.2.6) >> >> Notes >> ----- >> Section 3.2 plainly states header field names are token >> (VCHARs less separators) as defined in 3.2.6. >> >> The "header fields" identified in this footnote are neither >> clear nor correct. >> >> 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. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing >> 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 >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779) Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779) Mark Nottingham
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779) RFC Errata System
- [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7230 (4779) RFC Errata System