Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7232 (6080)
Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> Wed, 08 April 2020 13:43 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 DEE763A0C21 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:43:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 XFJVrzZ_PNtN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:43:05 -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 B3FD53A0C1C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 06:43:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jMAxv-0002mW-R5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:42:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:42:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jMAxv-0002mW-R5@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 <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>) id 1jMAxu-0002hC-UK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:42:02 +0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de ([217.91.35.233]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>) id 1jMAxr-0005hs-NY for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 13:42:02 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 119) id 7C424985016; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 15:41:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.178.124] (unknown [91.61.51.39]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ED08B980493; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 15:41:36 +0200 (CEST)
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, mnot@mnot.net, tpauly@apple.com
Cc: 1983-01-06@gmx.net, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <20200408133937.3D3B9F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Message-ID: <9fcbae21-96e1-076b-ed0b-666b1b77b6fd@greenbytes.de>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2020 15:41:35 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200408133937.3D3B9F4071F@rfc-editor.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.91.35.233; envelope-from=julian.reschke@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jMAxr-0005hs-NY 06249b8668fdd8dc83ab96933504326b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7232 (6080)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/9fcbae21-96e1-076b-ed0b-666b1b77b6fd@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37496
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>
On 08.04.2020 15:39, RFC Errata System wrote: > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7232, > "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Conditional Requests". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6080 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Michael Osipov <1983-01-06@gmx.net> > > Section: 3.2 > > Original Text > ------------- > If-None-Match can also be used with a value of "*" to prevent an > unsafe request method (e.g., PUT) from inadvertently modifying an > existing representation of the target resource when the client > believes that the resource does not have a current representation > (Section 4.2.1 of [RFC7231]). This is a variation on the "lost > update" problem that might arise if more than one client attempts to > create an initial representation for the target resource. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > > > Notes > ----- > Please clarify what is supposed to happen when If-None-Match is used with unsafe methods and the value is NOT "*". Should the server respond with BAD_REQUEST? > ... This is not an erratum. Please open a ticket at <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core>. Best regards, Julian
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7232 (6080) Julian Reschke