[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5300)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Sat, 24 March 2018 19:11 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 70058126D3F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.662
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 uUj-ZEv4A80R for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:11:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (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 E7E40126CD6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:11:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1ezoQT-00057e-HF for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:02:01 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:02:01 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1ezoQT-00057e-HF@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) 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 1ezoQG-00056U-F7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:01:48 +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 1ezoQB-0003Gb-Et for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:01:46 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id EC019B83D21; Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:01:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, ben@nostrum.com, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, adam@nostrum.com, mnot@mnot.net, pmcmanus@mozilla.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: jyasskin@google.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20180324190104.EC019B83D21@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:01:04 -0700
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.945, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1ezoQB-0003Gb-Et 0b77a115e6bb46eed4fdf4edce226cb9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5300)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20180324190104.EC019B83D21@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/35200
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 submitted 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/eid5300 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin@google.com> Section: 8.1 Original Text ------------- 8.1.1. Procedure HTTP method registrations MUST include the following fields: o Method Name (see Section 4) o Safe ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.1) o Idempotent ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.2) o Pointer to specification text Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see [RFC5226], Section 4.1). … 8.1.3. Registrations The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registry" has been populated with the registrations below: +---------+------+------------+---------------+ | Method | Safe | Idempotent | Reference | +---------+------+------------+---------------+ | CONNECT | no | no | Section 4.3.6 | | DELETE | no | yes | Section 4.3.5 | | GET | yes | yes | Section 4.3.1 | | HEAD | yes | yes | Section 4.3.2 | | OPTIONS | yes | yes | Section 4.3.7 | | POST | no | no | Section 4.3.3 | | PUT | no | yes | Section 4.3.4 | | TRACE | yes | yes | Section 4.3.8 | +---------+------+------------+---------------+ Corrected Text -------------- 8.1.1. Procedure HTTP method registrations MUST include the following fields: o Method Name (see Section 4) o Safe ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.1) o Idempotent ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.2) o Cacheable ("yes" or "no", see Section 4.2.3) o Pointer to specification text Values to be added to this namespace require IETF Review (see [RFC5226], Section 4.1). … 8.1.3. Registrations The "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) Method Registry" has been populated with the registrations below: +---------+------+------------+-----------+---------------+ | Method | Safe | Idempotent | Cacheable | Reference | +---------+------+------------+-----------+---------------+ | CONNECT | no | no | no | Section 4.3.6 | | DELETE | no | yes | no | Section 4.3.5 | | GET | yes | yes | yes | Section 4.3.1 | | HEAD | yes | yes | yes | Section 4.3.2 | | OPTIONS | yes | yes | no | Section 4.3.7 | | POST | no | no | yes | Section 4.3.3 | | PUT | no | yes | no | Section 4.3.4 | | TRACE | yes | yes | no | Section 4.3.8 | +---------+------+------------+-----------+---------------+ Notes ----- HTTP Methods have 3 boolean properties, all of which 8.1.2 says a registration needs to define, but only 2 of them were included in the registry. 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. -------------------------------------- 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
- [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5300) RFC Errata System
- Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7231 (5300) Jeffrey Yasskin