[Errata Rejected] RFC9110 (7107)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 12 October 2022 21:43 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 980E1C14CE46 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.661
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.661 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_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3AuL2XRdllgX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E33A1C14CE41 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:43:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1oijSY-002QT6-5i for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:40:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:40:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1oijSY-002QT6-5i@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1oijSX-002QS8-5n for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:40:13 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([50.223.129.200] helo=rfcpa.amsl.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1oijSU-00BsAe-Fg for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 21:40:12 +0000
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 7535A5BFC52; Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:39:58 -0700 (PDT)
To: james.synge@gmail.com, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: rfc-ed@rfc-editor.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20221012213958.7535A5BFC52@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2022 14:39:58 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=50.223.129.200; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com; helo=rfcpa.amsl.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1oijSU-00BsAe-Fg dcf67fa1a1c03f846beff3491dab832b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC9110 (7107)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20221012213958.7535A5BFC52@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40431
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 RFC9110, "HTTP Semantics". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7107 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: James Synge <james.synge@gmail.com> Date Reported: 2022-08-31 Rejected by: RFC Editor Section: 6.5.1 Original Text ------------- For example, the chunked transfer coding in HTTP/1.1 allows a trailer section to be sent after the content (Section 7.1.2 of [HTTP/1.1]). Corrected Text -------------- For example, the chunked transfer coding in HTTP/1.1 allows a trailer section to be sent after the content (Section ?.?.? of [HTTP/1.1]). Notes ----- Section 7.1.2 does not exist. It isn't clear to me which section is the intended target of the reference. --VERIFIER NOTES-- Errata rejected per Julian Reschke. Section 7.1.2 does exist. See <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9112#section-7.1.2>. -------------------------------------- RFC9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19) -------------------------------------- Title : HTTP Semantics Publication Date : June 2022 Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. Category : INTERNET STANDARD Source : HTTP Area : Applications and Real-Time Stream : IETF
- [Errata Rejected] RFC9110 (7107) RFC Errata System