Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5300)

Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com> Sun, 25 March 2018 00:54 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 50CDD12704A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.76
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.76 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=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 eFuHFDX7ZRsi for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46D6312025C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:54:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1eztqh-0002No-2L for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:49:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:49:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1eztqh-0002No-2L@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <jyasskin@google.com>) id 1eztqX-0002Mw-AJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:49:17 +0000
Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <jyasskin@google.com>) id 1eztqR-0005S1-HA for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:49:16 +0000
Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id v194-v6so6772004itb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=E+Ie8VSB7twRKK9h+KLuoQqfIUHnfNUOJlHmg4Zt0m8=; b=RXidEU6TCy1lmk+n+VrzKDaEASK1ADUFVjZ8xzYkTvshzL/KAzVkJZ5dPpku7g4yZU s3wIyYHuXdPZ8o6EV9JrVPc9WC3y9nOaylNAR2OSAC33KkfANfYqjXpQqYPs2kXVuD2o aC4kM4X6d6oj4AFHOe0RtZbqd/5A9+9/k3HF38vBmB4IUHIITrBHyfUyHq5Wpino/JRS efihSQq5HSyxs6mQT5/jtVLClJjJB7efdXSjsfIgOkEQLTy5XwBYyfMO1HMciy39FUGt kUv8vPnqMOX7opyiDR8ZHz0AKyQjXbQyN+s6BL8zTznzk25luyITCoUU08yee1Wq9sFp 33RA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=E+Ie8VSB7twRKK9h+KLuoQqfIUHnfNUOJlHmg4Zt0m8=; b=gUirOni+cA68ewBC37hDPkVE13H8YsB/dHHG6DP4dtvGQqeo0rg7SsVyFgmDEaH+0e hoNPLHhtCdoboPp0iInjjKGBKGdGKTpnzDFd/lVw/CpgchIUSLxplLll1M4VgEgaNDDX RzTTbF6RXDLvqx8BfE+BHrX+Fr+csOJhp9N3Oulr2J4uKlQODpMOwc0sglSd2qbzIHhs EHjVVHvN7IE6FDdGdqIE9X9Tv0dgIMy80NynqE7lhgZjyq6uPnaQLhsdAHTTspgAyiwP 5m1uXxfJ2qIGvZBK4u/3P6iMM3OLF8TqhlJniqKsXuBgn9y2VVbkJQGdAQxhnYJzNlsR daJQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7HpTz7ZDfGpWtpa0haEPf0rRBHhYJJyv/xHk89OdVYbIL5WID+o pBTJm+wF/Qqt0ZYl1JMOHsfO5hW4c5f3rTfwtlWO8Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+Pz9RhtxDMCevfKC5wBm6SqlKUV82gqAieFMRDqf0x1L7PF6MRp9nYqu6PYTXOpnhQ4Xqx8fx1jetZ07d2irw=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:7143:: with SMTP id n64-v6mr17651746itc.4.1521938929242; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:48:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20180324190104.EC019B83D21@rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20180324190104.EC019B83D21@rfc-editor.org>
From: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 00:48:38 +0000
Message-ID: <CANh-dXmGDtrKWjShrJ4CR7AsQAcT3Fe0zOJ4DsBUwNpLfSg2EA@mail.gmail.com>
To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Cc: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, pmcmanus@mozilla.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000400fe20568320579"
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.624, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1eztqR-0005S1-HA ebd204de0d9006b812f6d9b17e8489b9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5300)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CANh-dXmGDtrKWjShrJ4CR7AsQAcT3Fe0zOJ4DsBUwNpLfSg2EA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35202
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>

It probably makes sense to handle this during the HTTPtre process. I filed
an erratum to be sure not to forget it between now and when that repository
is created.

Jeffrey


On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 7:01 PM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
wrote:

> 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/eid5300
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com>
>
> Section: 8.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> 8.1.1.  Procedure
>
>    HTTP method registrations MUST include the following fields:
>
>    o  Method Name (see Section 4)
>
>    o  Safe ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.1)
>
>    o  Idempotent ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.2)
>
>    o  Pointer to specification text
>
>    Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see
>    [RFC5226], Section 4.1).
>
> …
>
> 8.1.3.  Registrations
>
>    The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registry" has been
>    populated with the registrations below:
>
>    +---------+------+------------+---------------+
>    | Method  | Safe | Idempotent | Reference     |
>    +---------+------+------------+---------------+
>    | CONNECT | no   | no         | Section 4.3.6 |
>    | DELETE  | no   | yes        | Section 4.3.5 |
>    | GET     | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.1 |
>    | HEAD    | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.2 |
>    | OPTIONS | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.7 |
>    | POST    | no   | no         | Section 4.3.3 |
>    | PUT     | no   | yes        | Section 4.3.4 |
>    | TRACE   | yes  | yes        | Section 4.3.8 |
>    +---------+------+------------+---------------+
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> 8.1.1.  Procedure
>
>    HTTP method registrations MUST include the following fields:
>
>    o  Method Name (see Section 4)
>
>    o  Safe ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.1)
>
>    o  Idempotent ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.2)
>
>    o  Cacheable ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.3)
>
>    o  Pointer to specification text
>
>    Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see
>    [RFC5226], Section 4.1).
>
> …
>
> 8.1.3.  Registrations
>
>    The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registry" has been
>    populated with the registrations below:
>
>    +---------+------+------------+-----------+---------------+
>    | Method  | Safe | Idempotent | Cacheable | Reference     |
>    +---------+------+------------+-----------+---------------+
>    | CONNECT | no   | no         | no        | Section 4.3.6 |
>    | DELETE  | no   | yes        | no        | Section 4.3.5 |
>    | GET     | yes  | yes        | yes       | Section 4.3.1 |
>    | HEAD    | yes  | yes        | yes       | Section 4.3.2 |
>    | OPTIONS | yes  | yes        | no        | Section 4.3.7 |
>    | POST    | no   | no         | yes       | Section 4.3.3 |
>    | PUT     | no   | yes        | no        | Section 4.3.4 |
>    | TRACE   | yes  | yes        | no        | Section 4.3.8 |
>    +---------+------+------------+-----------+---------------+
>
> Notes
> -----
> HTTP Methods have 3 boolean properties, all of which 8.1.2 says a
> registration needs to define, but only 2 of them were included in the
> registry.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> 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
>