[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4665)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 13 April 2016 10:50 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 E086212D122 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 dfhP2LDcKQco for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:26 -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 93E8E12D59B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:50:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aqIIw-0004LS-HU for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:45:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:45:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aqIIw-0004LS-HU@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) 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 1aqIIs-0004IP-IF for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:45:46 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1aqIIm-0008NU-Li; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 10:45:46 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B09B1180005; Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, ylafon@w3.org, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: amichai2@amichais.net, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20160413104500.B09B1180005@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:45:00 -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=-9.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=4.017, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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: maggie.w3.org 1aqIIm-0008NU-Li 812f5f42ad3ce41b8fcbb4197e5a5eba
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4665)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160413104500.B09B1180005@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31437
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 submitted for RFC7233, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7233&eid=4665 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Amichai Rothman <amichai2@amichais.net> Section: 3.1 Original Text ------------- Corrected Text -------------- If all of the preconditions are true and the target representation length is zero, the server SHOULD send a 200 (OK) response. Notes ----- An empty representation is unsatisfiable according to section 2.1, but not unsatisfiable according to section 4.4 if the first-byte-pos is zero. An empty 200 response is the simplest solution to this contradiction, since it is a valid response anyway (if the server chooses to ignore the Range header), clients already handle it properly, it provides all necessary information to the client, and stating it explicitly can prevent subtle edge-case pitfalls in both the RFC and its implementations. 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. -------------------------------------- RFC7233 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-26) -------------------------------------- Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests Publication Date : June 2014 Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., Y. Lafon, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4665) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4665) Mark Nottingham