- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2014 00:27:09 -1000
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Michel Albert <michel@albert.lu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
This report is incorrect. Status code 304 relates to conditional requests, and is therefore documented in RFC 7232 (Section 4.1). This fact is shown in the table in RFC 7231, Section 6.1, and in the IANA registry "HTTP Status Codes" <http://www.iana.org/assignments/http-status-codes>. Barry, Applications AD On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 12:16 AM, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > 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=4180 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Michel Albert <michel@albert.lu> > > Section: 6.4 > > Original Text > ------------- > n/a > > Corrected Text > -------------- > n/a > > Notes > ----- > The section on status code 304 is missing even though that status code is mentioned in other parts of the document. RFC2616 described the status code as follows (in section 10.3.5): > > >> 10.3.5 304 Not Modified >> >> If the client has performed a conditional GET request and access is >> allowed, but the document has not been modified, the server SHOULD >> respond with this status code. The 304 response MUST NOT contain a >> message-body, and thus is always terminated by the first empty line >> after the header fields. >> >> The response MUST include the following header fields: >> >> - Date, unless its omission is required by section 14.18.1 > > > This section would go right after "6.4.4. 303 See Other". > > 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 > Area : Applications > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG >
Received on Friday, 14 November 2014 10:27:38 UTC