[Errata Rejected] RFC7234 (4616)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 23 February 2017 15:24 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 5DAC91299BD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:24:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 zqM76FhQBtdH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:24:33 -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 567F91299B4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:24:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cgvEJ-0007LJ-Uw for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:22:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:22:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cgvEJ-0007LJ-Uw@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1cgvEF-0007Jh-9k for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:22:47 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1cgvE6-0000qB-G6 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:22:41 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id CE468B80411; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:22:11 -0800 (PST)
To: me@brianchang.info, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org, charset=UTF-8@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20170223152211.CE468B80411@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:22:11 -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=-8.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.821, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cgvE6-0000qB-G6 c5833c71042e9b124c72611d21868e68
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC7234 (4616)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20170223152211.CE468B80411@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33602
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 rejected for RFC7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7234&eid=4616 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Editorial Reported by: Brian Chang <me@brianchang.info> Date Reported: 2016-02-08 Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG) Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- (See Section 3.2 for additional details related to the use of public in response to a request containing Authorization, and Section 3 for details of how public affects responses that would normally not be stored, due to their status codes not being defined as cacheable by default; see Section 4.2.2.) has a status code that is defined as cacheable by default (see Section 4.2.2), or Corrected Text -------------- (See Section 3.2 for additional details related to the use of public in response to a request containing Authorization, and Section 3 for details of how public affects responses that would normally not be stored, due to their status codes not being defined as cacheable by default; see Section 6.1 of [RFC7231].) has a status code that is defined as cacheable by default (see Section 6.1 of [RFC7231]), or Notes ----- Section 4.2.2 is titled "Calculating Heuristic Freshness" but is referenced in the original text when talking about status codes. This is confusing despite having a reference to Section 6.1 of RFC7231 buried within the text. There are other references to 4.2.2 as well, but those actually talk about heuristic freshness. --VERIFIER NOTES-- See HTTPBIS mailing list discussion. -------------------------------------- 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
- [Errata Rejected] RFC7234 (4616) RFC Errata System