[Errata Rejected] RFC7230 (6565)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 29 April 2021 10:02 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 4EECF3A386A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 03:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 oN44mzqkbZeR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 03:02:19 -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 283243A3866 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 03:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1lc3Ui-0003j3-GV for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:02:04 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:02:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1lc3Ui-0003j3-GV@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 1lc3Uh-0003ds-At for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:02:03 +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 1lc3Uf-0005bj-Mt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:02:03 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 18150F4079B; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 03:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
To: alissa-tung@outlook.com, fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210429100136.18150F4079B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 03:01:36 -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=-10.2
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_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1lc3Uf-0005bj-Mt 63a078b1043f67a9d6e85010cd3c8af5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC7230 (6565)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20210429100136.18150F4079B@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38763
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 RFC7230, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6565 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: Alissa Tung <alissa-tung@outlook.com> Date Reported: 2021-04-29 Rejected by: Francesca Palombini (IESG) Section: section-6.3 Original Text ------------- o If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection option is present, the recipient is not a proxy, and the recipient wishes to honor the HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the connection will persist after the current response; otherwise, o The connection will close after the current response. Corrected Text -------------- o If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection option is present, the recipient is not a proxy, and the recipient wishes to honor the HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the connection will persist after the current response; otherwise, the connection will close after the current response. Notes ----- Error on breaking paragraph. --VERIFIER NOTES-- This paragraph split into two bullets was meant to be as is in the document, for readability. -------------------------------------- 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
- [Errata Rejected] RFC7230 (6565) RFC Errata System