Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7234 (6279)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

The comment is technically valid, but as noted, this won't cause interoperability problems, so probably HOLD FOR UPDATE.

I've filed <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/447>.


> On 4 Sep 2020, at 12:26 pm, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7234,
> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching".
> 
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6279
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Todd Greer <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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.)
> 
> 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  
> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/