W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4281)

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 16:36:16 +1100
Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, barryleiba@computer.org, presnick@qti.qualcomm.com, demianbrecht@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <A815F695-E6DF-416E-992C-899EC4FD9641@mnot.net>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
I think Roy wrote this text, but from my standpoint, it's REJECT -- Content-Length defines message length under these conditions no matter what the UA should or should not do.


> On 27 Feb 2015, at 4:26 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=4281
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Demian Brecht <demianbrecht@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: 3.3.2
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> For messages that do not include a payload body, the Content-Length
> indicates the size of the selected representation (Section 3 of
> [RFC7231]).
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> For outbound messages that do not include a payload body, the
> Content-Length indicates the size of the selected representation
> (Section 3 of [RFC7231]).
> 
> Notes
> -----
> Assuming my interpretation is correct, this phrase as-is is a little confusing given the next paragraphs states:
> 
> "A user agent SHOULD NOT send a Content-Length header field when the request message does not contain a payload body and the method semantics do not anticipate such a body."
> 
> The former is ambiguous, the latter explicit.
> 
> 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
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 27 February 2015 05:36:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC