[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7234 (6279)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 29 April 2021 09:57 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 943213A3845 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 02:57:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.671
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.671 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 LNfNSq_0ugcR for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 02:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
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 E93FE3A3843 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 02:57:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1lc3Nf-0002p9-5T for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:54:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:54:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1lc3Nf-0002p9-5T@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 1lc3Nd-0002oW-AJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:54:45 +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 1lc3Na-0002i6-Ue for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 09:54:45 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 37EBDF40775; Thu, 29 Apr 2021 02:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
To: tgreer@google.com, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 1005:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20210429095416.37EBDF40775@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2021 02:54:16 -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=-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 1lc3Na-0002i6-Ue 9442f03e9e3dd239dd270bf77b1dc8b1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7234 (6279)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20210429095416.37EBDF40775@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38761
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 held for document update 
for RFC7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6279

--------------------------------------
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported by: Todd Greer <tgreer@google.com>
Date Reported: 2020-09-04
Held by: Francesca Palombini (IESG)

Section: 4.2.4

Original Text
-------------
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).



Corrected Text
--------------
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.)

--------------------------------------
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