[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (4616)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 09 February 2016 00:12 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7401B3DE7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:12:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.903 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 9WuTO-eXj4EO for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:12:06 -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 D49CB1B3DF5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:11:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1aSvpj-0008Gc-RL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:07:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:07:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1aSvpj-0008Gc-RL@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 1aSvpc-0008Fn-FV for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:07:00 +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 1aSvpV-0000zd-Vr for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:06:58 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id AEDDA18046A; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 16:05:55 -0800 (PST)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, barryleiba@computer.org, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: me@brianchang.info, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20160209000555.AEDDA18046A@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:05:55 -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=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.281, BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1aSvpV-0000zd-Vr 44d30016d46485422357386caa240047
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (4616)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160209000555.AEDDA18046A@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31053
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 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 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Brian Chang <me@brianchang.info> 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. 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. -------------------------------------- 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 (4616) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (4616) Mark Nottingham
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (4616) Mark Nottingham