Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6279)
"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Fri, 04 September 2020 17:06 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 15AB33A0B03 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 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, 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=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 OvEMhWOaKW7K for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:06:42 -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 7652A3A0AFD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kEF8C-0002pG-Qc for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:04:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:04:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kEF8C-0002pG-Qc@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1kEF89-0002o5-Ro for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:04:06 +0000
Received: from brown.birch.relay.mailchannels.net ([23.83.209.23]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1kEF87-0001ol-Cu for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:04:05 +0000
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D5748193F; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:03:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (100-98-118-22.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.98.118.22]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7A766481D93; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 17:03:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (pop.dreamhost.com [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.9); Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:03:50 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|fielding@gbiv.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Broad-Descriptive: 5df49ad16d210f95_1599239029843_2044593592
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1599239029842:2924738198
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1599239029842
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FDF17F065; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:03:47 -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=Vi/eXyJkGMqxWA12nCV70fTAZ3s=; b=ZyYcpx5AOk2Q4CuCc3CqCc4aejIH wYxSWLb4hSeKEtDGsiKiatWg5ywKYZZ5+43hfpfCrZfQFaKmYQPADe2C/r7W5Sv1 eSK4NKGQLctQcOsHaAaQghxmS8F9IoVxKo+mf7niSg2WlCGeC/ACdRz+sW6lj4NZ Z6Px4/+oNVrtzyA=
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (ip68-101-102-139.oc.oc.cox.net [68.101.102.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a46.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4405F7F05F; Fri, 4 Sep 2020 10:03:41 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\))
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a46
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200904022631.8897AF4077F@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 10:03:40 -0700
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, tgreer@google.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <355CFEC9-AE7B-44D0-9486-B395CF7CB692@gbiv.com>
References: <20200904022631.8897AF4077F@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudegfedguddtlecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpedftfhohicuvfdrucfhihgvlhguihhnghdfuceofhhivghlughinhhgsehgsghivhdrtghomheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnhepudfgudehieegffffteelhfdvgfekgedvvedtteehtdevvdffueefgfdukeeguefhnecuffhomhgrihhnpedutggrtghhihhnghdrqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqqddqhihouhdprhhftgdqvgguihhtohhrrdhorhhgnecukfhppeeikedruddtuddruddtvddrudefleenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphdphhgvlhhopegludelvddrudeikedruddrhegnpdhinhgvthepieekrddutddurddutddvrddufeelpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpedftfhohicuvfdrucfhihgvlhguihhnghdfuceofhhivghlughinhhgsehgsghivhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepfhhivghlughinhhgsehgsghivhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepihgvthhfqdhhthhtphdqfihgseiffedrohhrgh
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=23.83.209.23; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=brown.birch.relay.mailchannels.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1kEF87-0001ol-Cu 97972952edd6aa1279c85b05ced2ac91
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6279)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/355CFEC9-AE7B-44D0-9486-B395CF7CB692@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38015
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>
REJECT The no-store directive prohibits storing the response. It is impossible for a cache to generate a stale response without storing it. ....Roy > On Sep 3, 2020, at 7:26 PM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7234, > "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6279 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Todd Greer <tgreer@google.com> > > Section: 4.2.4 > > Original Text > ------------- > A cache MUST NOT generate a stale response if it is prohibited by an > explicit in-protocol directive (e.g., by a "no-store" or "no-cache" > cache directive, a "must-revalidate" cache-response-directive, or an > applicable "s-maxage" or "proxy-revalidate" cache-response-directive; > see Section 5.2.2). > > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > A cache MUST NOT generate a stale response if it is prohibited by an > explicit in-protocol directive (e.g., by a "no-cache" > cache directive, a "must-revalidate" cache-response-directive, or an > applicable "s-maxage" or "proxy-revalidate" cache-response-directive; > see Section 5.2.2). > > Notes > ----- > The examples of directives that prohibit stale responses includes "no-store", but the definitions of "no-store" in 5.2.1.5 and 5.2.2.3 don't prohibit serving stale responses, and there is no other mention in RFC 7234 (or elsewhere) of "no-store" prohibiting serving stale responses. > > If a "no-store" request directive is intended to prohibit serving stale responses, 5.2.1.5 should say so. (The question is meaningless for "no-store" response directives, since those should never be found in a cache.) > > 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. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7234 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-26) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching > Publication Date : June 2014 > Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP > Area : Applications > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6279) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6279) Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6279) Roy T. Fielding
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6279) Julian Reschke