[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4683)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 04 May 2016 06:00 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 6162312D170 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 23:00:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 QuqBsKK27p1m for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 May 2016 23:00:45 -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 DE42212D0D3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 May 2016 23:00:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1axpmb-0005kI-5u for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 05:55:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 05:55:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1axpmb-0005kI-5u@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) 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 1axpmV-0005hl-6y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 05:55:31 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1axpmT-0002di-Qg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 04 May 2016 05:55:30 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id DAF85180003; Tue, 3 May 2016 22:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: quae@daurnimator.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20160504055428.DAF85180003@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 22:54:28 -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=-9.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.956, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1axpmT-0002di-Qg ae64368d3219d224ae2cf69d7bc4940f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4683)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160504055428.DAF85180003@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31593
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 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=4683 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Daurnimator <quae@daurnimator.com> Section: 4 Original Text ------------- Corrected Text -------------- The name part of a transfer-parameter is case insensitive and MUST not be "q" (as this would be ambiguous when used as part of the TE header). Notes ----- Nothing is said about how to handle transfer-parameters. Notably, nothing is said about the case sensitivity of the parameter key. This results in a conflict with the TE header: if you see a "q" token, you cannot know if it is a transfer-parameter vs a t-ranking. It *is* noted that the "q" token is case insensitive in section 4.3. > When multiple transfer codings are acceptable, the client MAY rank > the codings by preference using a case-insensitive "q" parameter 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
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4683) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4683) Mark Nottingham
- [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7230 (4683) RFC Errata System