[Errata Rejected] RFC7233 (4665)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 23 February 2017 15:30 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 649DD1299CB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:30:34 -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 tWaHY3PAllgw for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:30:33 -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 F0BA01299C8 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:30:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cgvJy-0002Dk-SJ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:28:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:28:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cgvJy-0002Dk-SJ@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 1cgvJt-0002A1-Sq for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:28:37 +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 1cgvJm-0001X8-4G; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 15:28:32 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 0CCE9B81028; Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:27:37 -0800 (PST)
To: amichai2@amichais.net, fielding@gbiv.com, ylafon@w3.org, 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: <20170223152737.0CCE9B81028@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 07:27:37 -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=-8.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.702, 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 1cgvJm-0001X8-4G 9fb48cf9b7389ea7eb8510cacd9b08f3
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC7233 (4665)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20170223152737.0CCE9B81028@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33605
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 RFC7233, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7233&eid=4665 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Amichai Rothman <amichai2@amichais.net> Date Reported: 2016-04-13 Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG) Section: 3.1 Original Text ------------- Corrected Text -------------- If all of the preconditions are true and the target representation length is zero, the server SHOULD send a 200 (OK) response. Notes ----- An empty representation is unsatisfiable according to section 2.1, but not unsatisfiable according to section 4.4 if the first-byte-pos is zero. An empty 200 response is the simplest solution to this contradiction, since it is a valid response anyway (if the server chooses to ignore the Range header), clients already handle it properly, it provides all necessary information to the client, and stating it explicitly can prevent subtle edge-case pitfalls in both the RFC and its implementations. --VERIFIER NOTES-- Mark Nottingham: this is not an erratum. Please raise an issue here: <https://github.com/httpwg/http11bis/issues> -------------------------------------- RFC7233 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-26) -------------------------------------- Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests Publication Date : June 2014 Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., Y. Lafon, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
- [Errata Rejected] RFC7233 (4665) RFC Errata System