- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 2021 15:49:28 +1100
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
There seems to be something wrong here -- either a tools problem, or some copy-paste spam. Could rfc-editor@ please look into it? Cheers, > On 2 Jan 2021, at 3:42 pm, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7234, > "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6377 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Editorial > Reported by: MR JUSTAS KUKSTA <justaskuksta@gmail.com> > > Section: 7234 > > Original Text > ------------- > {"type":"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-6.5.4","title":"Not Found","status":404,"traceId":"00-ef45f92788e3f5489612f478de970e86-3c0f03f4a62afc41-00"} > > Corrected Text > -------------- > Status: Verified (1) > RFC 7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", June 2014 > Source of RFC: httpbis (app) > Errata ID: 4674 > Status: Verified > Type: Editorial > Publication Format(s) : TEXT > Reported By: Vasiliy Faronov > Date Reported: 2016-04-21 > Verifier Name: Alexey Melnikov > Date Verified: 2016-04-26 > Section 5.4 says: > > When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the > pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache > is purposefully omitted to target other Cache-Control response > ^^^^^^^^ > directives at HTTP/1.1 caches. > It should say: > > When sending a no-cache request, a client ought to include both the > pragma and cache-control directives, unless Cache-Control: no-cache > is purposefully omitted to target other Cache-Control request > ^^^^^^^ > directives at HTTP/1.1 caches. > Notes: > > "other Cache-Control response directives" was probably intended to be "other Cache-Control request directives," because a request cannot have response directives. > > Status: Reported (1) > RFC 7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", June 2014 > Source of RFC: httpbis (app) > Errata ID: 6279 > Status: Reported > Type: Technical > Publication Format(s) : TEXT > Reported By: Todd Greer > Date Reported: 2020-09-04 > Section 4.2.4 says: > > A cache MUST NOT generate a stale response if it is prohibited by an > explicit in-protocol directive (e.g., by a "no-store" or "no-cache" > cache directive, a "must-revalidate" cache-response-directive, or an > applicable "s-maxage" or "proxy-revalidate" cache-response-directive; > see Section 5.2.2). > > > It should say: > > A cache MUST NOT generate a stale response if it is prohibited by an > explicit in-protocol directive (e.g., by a "no-cache" > cache directive, a "must-revalidate" cache-response-directive, or an > applicable "s-maxage" or "proxy-revalidate" cache-response-directive; > see Section 5.2.2). > Notes: > > The examples of directives that prohibit stale responses includes "no-store", but the definitions of "no-store" in 5.2.1.5 and 5.2.2.3 don't prohibit serving stale responses, and there is no other mention in RFC 7234 (or elsewhere) of "no-store" prohibiting serving stale responses. > > If a "no-store" request directive is intended to prohibit serving stale responses, 5.2.1.5 should say so. (The question is meaningless for "no-store" response directives, since those should never be found in a cache.) > > Status: Rejected (3) > RFC 7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", June 2014 > Source of RFC: httpbis (app) > Errata ID: 5564 > Status: Rejected > Type: Technical > Publication Format(s) : TEXT > Reported By: Bruce Adams > Date Reported: 2018-11-27 > Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov > Date Rejected: 2019-03-25 > Section 4.2.4 says: > > A cache MUST NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected > (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a > forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the > max-stale request directive; see Section 5.2.1). > It should say: > > A cache SHOULD NOT send stale responses unless it is disconnected > (i.e., it cannot contact the origin server or otherwise find a > forward path) or doing so is explicitly allowed (e.g., by the > max-stale request directive; see Section 5.2.1). > > A cache MAY send stale responses if a cache-control extension for > stale content such as "stale-while-revalidate" is used > (see RFC5861). > > Notes > ----- > Notes: > > The original text seems to conflict with https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5861#section-3 > > 3. The stale-while-revalidate Cache-Control Extension > > 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 > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC7234 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p6-cache-26) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching > Publication Date : June 2014 > Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, 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 Saturday, 2 January 2021 04:49:55 UTC