[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (4674)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Thu, 21 April 2016 13:09 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 E656F12D73F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.917
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.917 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 jrJxpoFVJxt9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
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 B064412DC92 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:09:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1atEIK-0002Sc-Bf for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:05:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:05:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1atEIK-0002Sc-Bf@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 1atEIE-0002Ps-U0 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:05:15 +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 1atEID-0000Od-Cd for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 13:05:14 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 9024F18046E; Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: vfaronov@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20160421130409.9024F18046E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:04:09 -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=-9.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.970, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996, 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: maggie.w3.org 1atEID-0000Od-Cd b7fce7fda2f4c141f942a49770808a65
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (4674)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20160421130409.9024F18046E@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31543
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=4674 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com> Section: 5.4 Original Text ------------- When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache is purposefully omitted to target other Cache-Control response directives at HTTP/1.1 caches. Corrected Text -------------- When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache is purposefully omitted to target other Cache-Control request directives at HTTP/1.1 caches. Notes ----- "other Cache-Control response directives" was probably intended to be "other Cache-Control request directives," because a request cannot have response directives. 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 (4674) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7234 (4674) Mark Nottingham
- [Errata Verified] RFC7234 (4674) RFC Errata System