[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7231 (4436)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 07 August 2015 14:13 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4A91A8931 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable
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 XM7fMZYE0wxQ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
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 92DA01A88F9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ZNiMY-00088N-Gq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:11:10 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:11:10 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ZNiMY-00088N-Gq@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1ZNiMU-00087f-2O for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:11:06 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1ZNiMM-0000Dn-6y for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 07 Aug 2015 14:11:05 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 980AF180472; Fri, 7 Aug 2015 07:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
To: aron.duby@gmail.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: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20150807140611.980AF180472@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 07 Aug 2015 07:06:11 -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=-7.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.176, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.112, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1ZNiMM-0000Dn-6y 751c64a00a4d5f0a05ca6a7085c70498
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7231 (4436)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20150807140611.980AF180472@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/30067
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>
The following errata report has been held for document update for RFC7231, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7231&eid=4436 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Editorial Reported by: Aron Duby <aron.duby@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2015-08-06 Held by: Barry Leiba (IESG) Section: 4.3.5 Original Text ------------- If a DELETE method is successfully applied, the origin server SHOULD send a 202 (Accepted) status code if the action will likely succeed but has not yet been enacted, a 204 (No Content) status code if the action has been enacted and no further information is to be supplied, or a 200 (OK) status code if the action has been enacted and the response message includes a representation describing the status. Corrected Text -------------- If a DELETE method is successfully applied, the origin server SHOULD send a 202 (Accepted) status code if the action will likely succeed but has not yet been enacted; a 204 (No Content) status code if the action has been enacted and no further information is to be supplied; or a 200 (OK) status code if the action has been enacted and the response message includes a representation describing the status. Notes ----- Using a semicolon creates a stronger delineation of the different options. If you are just quickly trying to parse what status to return if the delete hasn't happened yet and you quickly read "has not yet been enacted, a 204 (No Content)" you could incorrectly read that as return a 204. The semicolon makes it more obvious that "enacted" is the end of that thought and to scan backwards where as the comma in this instance requires knowing the structure of the rest of the paragraph. ----- Verifier Notes ----- There's no reason to use semicolons to delimit this list, because the list items themselves don't contain commas. Still, the reporter's confusion is noted. Perhaps a bullet list would be better in this case: ------- If a DELETE method is successfully applied, the origin server SHOULD send - a 202 (Accepted) status code if the action will likely succeed but has not yet been enacted, - a 204 (No Content) status code if the action has been enacted and no further information is to be supplied, or - a 200 (OK) status code if the action has been enacted and the response message includes a representation describing the status. ------- -------------------------------------- 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
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4436) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4436) Willy Tarreau
- [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7231 (4436) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7231 (4436) Barry Leiba