[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4281)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Fri, 27 February 2015 05:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 821311A0056 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:32:10 -0800 (PST)
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=ham
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 GVgahGfOJcOl for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:32:08 -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 BF7CD1A0060 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:32:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YRDSX-00054E-NK for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 05:27:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 05:27:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YRDSX-00054E-NK@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1YRDSO-00052b-TG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 05:27:24 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1YRDSM-0000kp-UO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2015 05:27:24 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id BD23A181B3D; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:26:22 -0800 (PST)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, barryleiba@computer.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 6000:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: demianbrecht@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20150227052622.BD23A181B3D@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 21:26:22 -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=-5.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YRDSM-0000kp-UO c75816442eaff4c66b6c5c6b79a117c0
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4281)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20150227052622.BD23A181B3D@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28862
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 RFC7230,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4281

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com>

Section: 3.3.2

Original Text
-------------
For messages that do not include a payload body, the Content-Length
indicates the size of the selected representation (Section 3 of
[RFC7231]).

Corrected Text
--------------
For outbound messages that do not include a payload body, the
Content-Length indicates the size of the selected representation
(Section 3 of [RFC7231]).

Notes
-----
Assuming my interpretation is correct, this phrase as-is is a little confusing given the next paragraphs states:

"A user agent SHOULD NOT send a Content-Length header field when the request message does not contain a payload body and the method semantics do not anticipate such a body."

The former is ambiguous, the latter explicit.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
Publication Date    : June 2014
Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG