[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779)

RFC Errata System
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4779

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: William A. Rowe Jr. <[hidden email]>

Section: A.2.

Original Text
-------------
   [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header fields and the reason
   phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
   removed).  (Section 3.2.6)

Corrected Text
--------------
   [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header field values and the reason
   phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
   removed).  (Section 3.2.6)

Notes
-----
Section 3.2 plainly states header field names are token
(VCHARs less separators) as defined in 3.2.6.

The "header fields" identified in this footnote are neither
clear nor correct.

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.

--------------------------------------
RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779)

Mark Nottingham-2
This seems like an editorial improvement; the current text is reasonably clear (especially since this is just a summary of changes, not normative text).

HOLD FOR UPDATE, I think.

Cheers,

> On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:42 PM, RFC Errata System <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4779
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: William A. Rowe Jr. <[hidden email]>
>
> Section: A.2.
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>   [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header fields and the reason
>   phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
>   removed).  (Section 3.2.6)
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>   [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header field values and the reason
>   phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
>   removed).  (Section 3.2.6)
>
> Notes
> -----
> Section 3.2 plainly states header field names are token
> (VCHARs less separators) as defined in 3.2.6.
>
> The "header fields" identified in this footnote are neither
> clear nor correct.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
> 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
>

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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779)

Roy T. Fielding
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Mark Nottingham <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> This seems like an editorial improvement; the current text is reasonably clear (especially since this is just a summary of changes, not normative text).
>
> HOLD FOR UPDATE, I think.

Isn't that pointless? I mean, the entire section should be removed on the
next update.

The existing text is correct in relation to the change from 2616.  Making
it more specific would have been better, but that doesn't qualify as errata.

....Roy

>
> Cheers,
>
>> On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:42 PM, RFC Errata System <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
>> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4779
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: William A. Rowe Jr. <[hidden email]>
>>
>> Section: A.2.
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>  [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header fields and the reason
>>  phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
>>  removed).  (Section 3.2.6)
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>  [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header field values and the reason
>>  phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
>>  removed).  (Section 3.2.6)
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> Section 3.2 plainly states header field names are token
>> (VCHARs less separators) as defined in 3.2.6.
>>
>> The "header fields" identified in this footnote are neither
>> clear nor correct.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
>> 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
>>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4779)

Mark Nottingham-2
Fair enough. REJECT.


> On 20 Aug 2016, at 2:25 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Mark Nottingham <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> This seems like an editorial improvement; the current text is reasonably clear (especially since this is just a summary of changes, not normative text).
>>
>> HOLD FOR UPDATE, I think.
>
> Isn't that pointless? I mean, the entire section should be removed on the
> next update.
>
> The existing text is correct in relation to the change from 2616.  Making
> it more specific would have been better, but that doesn't qualify as errata.
>
> ....Roy
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>> On 18 Aug 2016, at 7:42 PM, RFC Errata System <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
>>> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> You may review the report below and at:
>>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4779
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Type: Editorial
>>> Reported by: William A. Rowe Jr. <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> Section: A.2.
>>>
>>> Original Text
>>> -------------
>>> [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header fields and the reason
>>> phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
>>> removed).  (Section 3.2.6)
>>>
>>> Corrected Text
>>> --------------
>>> [...] Non-US-ASCII content in header field values and the reason
>>> phrase has been obsoleted and made opaque (the TEXT rule was
>>> removed).  (Section 3.2.6)
>>>
>>> Notes
>>> -----
>>> Section 3.2 plainly states header field names are token
>>> (VCHARs less separators) as defined in 3.2.6.
>>>
>>> The "header fields" identified in this footnote are neither
>>> clear nor correct.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>>
>
>

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