- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2015 23:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
- To: fielding@gbiv.com, julian.reschke@greenbytes.de, barryleiba@computer.org, mnot@mnot.net
- Cc: aron.duby@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
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_search.php?rfc=7231&eid=4436 -------------------------------------- Type: Editorial Reported by: Aron Duby <aron.duby@gmail.com> Section: 4.3.5 Original Text ------------- If a DELETE method is successfully applied, the origin server SHOULD send a 202 (Accepted) status code if the action will likely succeed but has not yet been enacted, a 204 (No Content) status code if the action has been enacted and no further information is to be supplied, or a 200 (OK) status code if the action has been enacted and the response message includes a representation describing the status. Corrected Text -------------- If a DELETE method is successfully applied, the origin server SHOULD send a 202 (Accepted) status code if the action will likely succeed but has not yet been enacted; a 204 (No Content) status code if the action has been enacted and no further information is to be supplied; or a 200 (OK) status code if the action has been enacted and the response message includes a representation describing the status. Notes ----- Using a semicolon creates a stronger delineation of the different options. If you are just quickly trying to parse what status to return if the delete hasn't happened yet and you quickly read "has not yet been enacted, a 204 (No Content)" you could incorrectly read that as return a 204. The semicolon makes it more obvious that "enacted" is the end of that thought and to scan backwards where as the comma in this instance requires knowing the structure of the rest of the paragraph. 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. -------------------------------------- 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
Received on Friday, 7 August 2015 06:33:49 UTC