Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4136)

Julian, Roy... is that item meant to refer to what's in 3.3.3 bullet
5, or does it refer to something else?

Barry

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:29 PM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> 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=4136
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Frank Gevaerts <frank@gevaerts.be>
>
> Section: A.2.
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> Bogus Content-Length header fields are now required to be handled as
> errors by recipients.  (Section 3.3.2)
>
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> Bogus Content-Length header fields are now required to be handled as
> errors by recipients.  (Section 3.3.3)
>
>
> Notes
> -----
> The mentioned requirement appears in 3.3.3 (5), not in 3.3.2
>
> 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
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

Received on Tuesday, 21 October 2014 00:26:13 UTC