- From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:25:43 -0700
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, pmcmanus@mozilla.com, wrowe@rowe-clan.net, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 8:21 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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 <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=4779 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Editorial >> Reported by: William A. Rowe Jr. <wrowe@rowe-clan.net> >> >> 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/ >
Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 16:26:10 UTC