Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4281)

"Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com> Fri, 27 February 2015 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F8F41AD0AF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:18:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 WvtNJMotntJO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:18:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45DDF1A92DC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:18:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YRPQb-0003Wa-1Y for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:14:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:14:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YRPQb-0003Wa-1Y@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1YRPQR-0003UT-Dj for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:14:11 +0000
Received: from sub4.mail.dreamhost.com ([69.163.253.135] helo=homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <fielding@gbiv.com>) id 1YRPQO-0001k2-H5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:14:11 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08EEE438072; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:13:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=gbiv.com; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=gbiv.com; bh=08Cccd0kIA+M4XyLuwM9s9qgV2Y=; b=wPkf2FI2J1pMVmjxZ44xn8npmdnl Ga9/bqlozSvat7o5HMKtcqYyO/dN73P7/ZZtdKi8BA4K/3lFU/hXxzcluITeiQ3k /z8z5wvMSOV8YJTGyE2BrWLjUvXAUFtGfUdWYSWMBl3KQUMS46rmc/DDUjsMHRY/ 8QT9gLu1vgiaHZQ=
Received: from [192.168.1.12] (ip68-228-83-124.oc.oc.cox.net [68.228.83.124]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: fielding@gbiv.com) by homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C8C4843806C; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:13:46 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150227052622.BD23A181B3D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:13:51 -0800
Cc: julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, barryleiba@computer.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, mnot@mnot.net, demianbrecht@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F99C498F-C472-43D6-8346-2E13D522F6F1@gbiv.com>
References: <20150227052622.BD23A181B3D@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Received-SPF: none client-ip=69.163.253.135; envelope-from=fielding@gbiv.com; helo=homiemail-a64.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.244, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1YRPQO-0001k2-H5 1a0f5edbc241d81911e9df44f2db0a91
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4281)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/F99C498F-C472-43D6-8346-2E13D522F6F1@gbiv.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28866
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Feb 26, 2015, at 9:26 PM, RFC Errata System wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4281
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: 3.3.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> For messages that do not include a payload body, the Content-Length
> indicates the size of the selected representation (Section 3 of
> [RFC7231]).
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> For outbound messages that do not include a payload body, the
> Content-Length indicates the size of the selected representation
> (Section 3 of [RFC7231]).
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Assuming my interpretation is correct, this phrase as-is is a little confusing given the next paragraphs states:
> 
> "A user agent SHOULD NOT send a Content-Length header field when the request message does not contain a payload body and the method semantics do not anticipate such a body."
> 
> The former is ambiguous, the latter explicit.
> 
> 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 (IESG)
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> 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
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG

REJECTED

What the full paragraph says is:

   When a message does not have a Transfer-Encoding header field, a
   Content-Length header field can provide the anticipated size, as a
   decimal number of octets, for a potential payload body.  For messages
   that do include a payload body, the Content-Length field-value
   provides the framing information necessary for determining where the
   body (and message) ends.  For messages that do not include a payload
   body, the Content-Length indicates the size of the selected
   representation (Section 3 of [RFC7231]).

There is no reason to narrow the last sentence to "outbound messages"
(nor, more accurately, to "responses"), because "messages that do not
include a payload body" is the only relevant characteristic.  What we
have here is a summary of the field's semantics given the message framing
algorithm, as described in the remainder of that section and 3.3.3.
The question it answers is "I have a content-length in a message that
does not include a payload body, what does it mean?" (knowing that, in all
other cases, content length means the length of the payload body.)

Naturally, the normative requirements are more specific and narrowed to
the distinct cases of requests and responses, which prevents a valid
inbound (request) message from containing a Content-Length header
field unless that message does include a payload body.

....Roy