Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7530)

[Julian Reschke <[e-mail]>]

On 30.05.2023 18:37, Philippe Cloutier wrote:
> Hi Roy,
>
> Le mar. 30 mai 2023 à 12:01, Roy T. Fielding <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> a écrit :
>
>      > On May 29, 2023, at 2:47 PM, RFC Errata System
>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>      >
>      > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9110,
>      > "HTTP Semantics".
>      >
>      > --------------------------------------
>      > You may review the report below and at:
>      > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7530
>     <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7530>
>      >
>      > --------------------------------------
>      > Type: Editorial
>      > Reported by: Philippe Cloutier <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>      >
>      > Section: 15.5.2.
>      >
>      > Original Text
>      > -------------
>      > The 401 (Unauthorized) status code indicates that the request has not
>      > been applied because it lacks valid authentication credentials for
>      > the target resource.
>      >
>      > Corrected Text
>      > --------------
>      > The 401 (Unauthorized) status code indicates that the request has not
>      > been processed because it lacks valid authentication credentials for
>      > the target resource.
>      >
>      > Notes
>      > -----
>      > "applying a request" is not a standard expression. Usually,
>     requests are "treated", "granted" or "processed".
>      >
>      > This phrasing was imported in Apache Tomcat; thanks to Mark
>     Thomas for pointing out it came from this RFC.
>
>     REJECT
>
>     A method is applied to a resource to have an effect that results in
>     a response.
>     Any web search on "method applied" will show you that it is quite
>     common in
>     standard English.
>
>
> You are right that a method can be applied. But the problematic
> statement is about a *request*. It is perfectly valid to "apply a method
> to process a request", for example, but that's not what the sentence says.

The method is part of the HTTP request...

>
>     The request has already been processed, at least partially,
>     in order to make a decision that resulted in a 401 error.
>
>
> To clarify, the contents of "Corrected Text" are merely a suggestion.
> Please don't take this as a request to change with the text I wrote, but
> as a request to apply whatever fix is best. There are several other
> options. I suggested "processed" since it's in line with 400, but I do
> not disagree that returning a 401 error is some partial request processing.
>
>  > The 401 (Unauthorized) status code indicates that the request has not
> been granted because it lacks valid authentication credentials for the
> target resource.
>
> ...would be IMO more exact. "fulfilled" would be another option.

"granted" would be for authorization (403), but not for authentication
(401).

>
>     [...]
>
>     In any case, RFC9110 defines a lot of standard expressions.
>
>
> I am sorry but I fail to understand what you are saying.
>
>
>     ....Roy

Same here. Let's stick to the terminology that we've been using for
years now.

Best regards, Julian