[Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7231 (5541)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 20 March 2019 18:53 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 37AC4128BE6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 SmV-kPORVYXM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (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 E9B8B1200B3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1h6gIK-0007vw-7h for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:50:32 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:50:32 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1h6gIK-0007vw-7h@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1h6gIG-0007vF-2D for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:50:28 +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 4.89) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1h6gIE-0001At-P8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:50:27 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C8D8BB80E94; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:49:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: rfc7231@vocumsineratio.com, fielding@gbiv.com, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190320184956.C8D8BB80E94@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 11:49:56 -0700
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.018, 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_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1h6gIE-0001At-P8 22d1e522b91974bdc319941f856d1ca7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Held for Document Update] RFC7231 (5541)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20190320184956.C8D8BB80E94@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36461
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 RFC7231, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content". 

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5541

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

Reported by: Danil Suits <rfc7231@vocumsineratio.com>
Date Reported: 2018-11-02
Held by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG)

Section: 4.3.5

Original Text
-------------
If a DELETE
   request passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses
   for the effective request URI, those stored responses will be
   invalidated

Corrected Text
--------------
If a successful DELETE
   request passes through a cache that has one or more stored responses
   for the effective request URI, those stored responses will be
   invalidated

Notes
-----
RFC 7234 4.4 describes the semantics of cache invalidation for successful requests (non-error status code), but does not describe semantics for unsuccessful requests.  The corrected text parallels the construction in section 4.3.4 ("If a successful PUT request...").

Mark Nottingham wrote:

I think HOLD FOR UPDATE; we can address this in the current http-core work. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7231 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content
Publication Date    : June 2014
Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG