[Errata Rejected] RFC7231 (6019)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 10 July 2020 12:52 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 268303A0C3F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:52:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.649
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.649 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 uoKtPUbJBMXB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (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 A546D3A0C3E for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jtsTA-000169-EP for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:49:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:49:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jtsTA-000169-EP@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1jtsT9-00015R-J0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:49:35 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1jtsT7-0001hM-L8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 12:49:35 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 7C0F7F40720; Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
To: 1983-01-06@gmx.net, fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20200710124851.7C0F7F40720@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 05:48:51 -0700 (PDT)
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=-7.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jtsT7-0001hM-L8 9a7f22687700a0cb6c5df8c625b9f183
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC7231 (6019)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20200710124851.7C0F7F40720@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37868
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>

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC7231,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6019

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported by: Michael Osipov <1983-01-06@gmx.net>
Date Reported: 2020-03-16
Rejected by: Barry Leiba (IESG)

Section: 3.1.1.1

Original Text
-------------
 A parameter value that matches the token production can be
   transmitted either as a token or within a quoted-string.  The quoted
   and unquoted values are equivalent.  For example, the following
   examples are all equivalent, but the first is preferred for
   consistency:

     text/html;charset=utf-8
     text/html;charset=UTF-8
     Text/HTML;Charset="utf-8"
     text/html; charset="utf-8"


Corrected Text
--------------
 A parameter value that matches the token production can be
   transmitted either as a token or within a quoted-string.  The quoted
   and unquoted values are equivalent.  For example, the following
   examples are all equivalent, but the first is preferred for
   consistency:

     text/html;charset=utf-8
     text/html;charset=UTF-8


Notes
-----
Section 3.1.1.2 defines charset value to be a token. I consider this to be a bad example which might cause confusion. Why should I quote the value if it is defined as token?! You make want to use some other example.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
   What's relevant is the ABNF for *parameter*, and that allows both token and quoted-string.  So the example is correct.

--------------------------------------
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