[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6377)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 02 January 2021 04:46 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 683D23A0C98 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 20:46:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.648
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.648 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, 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
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 IVlAx8sru1Ah for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 20:46:05 -0800 (PST)
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 466153A0C97 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 20:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1kvYkf-0002Wr-Cm for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2021 04:42:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 02 Jan 2021 04:42:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1kvYkf-0002Wr-Cm@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 <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1kvYke-0002WE-H0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2021 04:42:52 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1kvYka-0004Pu-Pb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 02 Jan 2021 04:42:52 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0A058F4073A; Fri, 1 Jan 2021 20:42:02 -0800 (PST)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, mnot@mnot.net, tpauly@apple.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: justaskuksta@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210102044202.0A058F4073A@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 2021 20:42:02 -0800
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: mimas.w3.org 1kvYka-0004Pu-Pb bc61b5476a0fee9a60a3dadc51ed4067
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6377)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20210102044202.0A058F4073A@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38357
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 submitted for RFC7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6377 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: MR JUSTAS KUKSTA <justaskuksta@gmail.com> Section: 7234 Original Text ------------- {"type":"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.4","title":"Not Found","status":404,"traceId":"00-ef45f92788e3f5489612f478de970e86-3c0f03f4a62afc41-00"} Corrected Text -------------- Status: Verified (1) RFC 7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", June 2014 Source of RFC: httpbis (app) Errata ID: 4674 Status: Verified Type: Editorial Publication Format(s) : TEXT Reported By: Vasiliy Faronov Date Reported: 2016-04-21 Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov Date Verified: 2016-04-26 Section 5.4 says: When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache is purposefully omitted to target other Cache-Control response ^^^^^^^^ directives at HTTP/1.1 caches. It should say: When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache is purposefully omitted to target other Cache-Control request ^^^^^^^ directives at HTTP/1.1 caches. Notes: "other Cache-Control response directives" was probably intended to be "other Cache-Control request directives," because a request cannot have response directives. Status: Reported (1) RFC 7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", June 2014 Source of RFC: httpbis (app) Errata ID: 6279 Status: Reported Type: Technical Publication Format(s) : TEXT Reported By: Todd Greer Date Reported: 2020-09-04 Section 4.2.4 says: 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). It should say: 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.) Status: Rejected (3) RFC 7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", June 2014 Source of RFC: httpbis (app) Errata ID: 5564 Status: Rejected Type: Technical Publication Format(s) : TEXT Reported By: Bruce Adams Date Reported: 2018-11-27 Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov Date Rejected: 2019-03-25 Section 4.2.4 says: A cache MUST NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the max-stale request directive; see Section 5.2.1). It should say: A cache SHOULD NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the max-stale request directive; see Section 5.2.1). A cache MAY send stale responses if a cache-control extension for stale content such as "stale-while-revalidate" is used (see RFC5861). Notes ----- Notes: The original text seems to conflict with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5861#section-3 3. The stale-while-revalidate Cache-Control Extension 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
- [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6377) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6377) Mark Nottingham