[Errata Rejected] RFC7234 (5564)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 25 March 2019 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 C7BBA1204C1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:30:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-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 aTVvs34HXghU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (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 383BF12038C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1h8RVi-000115-2m for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:27:38 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:27:38 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1h8RVi-000115-2m@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) 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 1h8RVe-0000yz-1c for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:27:34 +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 1h8RVY-00062K-Rp for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 15:27:33 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id B2D23B8244E; Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:26:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: tortoise_74@yahoo.co.uk, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20190325152657.B2D23B8244E@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 08:26:57 -0700
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.018, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1h8RVY-00062K-Rp 1a19117dd9bdb4330e9370eadd6a3701
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC7234 (5564)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20190325152657.B2D23B8244E@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36477
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 rejected for RFC7234,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5564

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Bruce Adams <tortoise_74@yahoo.co.uk>
Date Reported: 2018-11-27
Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov (IESG)

Section: 4.2.4

Original Text
-------------
A cache MUST NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected
   (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a
   forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the
   max-stale request directive; see Section 5.2.1).

Corrected Text
--------------
A cache SHOULD NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected
   (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a
   forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the
   max-stale request directive; see Section 5.2.1).

A cache MAY send stale responses if a cache-control extension for
stale content such as "stale-while-revalidate" is used 
(see RFC5861).

Notes
-----
The original text seems to conflict with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5861#section-3

3.  The stale-while-revalidate Cache-Control Extension

   When present in an HTTP response, the stale-while-revalidate Cache-
   Control extension indicates that caches MAY serve the response in
   which it appears after it becomes stale, up to the indicated number
   of seconds.

     stale-while-revalidate = "stale-while-revalidate" "=" delta-seconds

   If a cached response is served stale due to the presence of this
   extension, the cache SHOULD attempt to revalidate it while still
   serving stale responses (i.e., without blocking).

See also https://stackoverflow.com/questions/53324538/rest-low-latency-how-should-i-reply-to-a-get-while-an-upload-is-pending
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
Mark Nottingham wrote:

Extensions are explicitly allowed to override requirements, and
making this a SHOULD would be too confusing (as many would read it as
"optional").


--------------------------------------
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