- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 11:28:12 +0200
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fielding@gbiv.com, mnot@mnot.net, superuser@gmail.com, francesca.palombini@ericsson.com, tpauly@apple.com
- Cc: gary.wilson@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Am 31.08.2022 um 19:19 schrieb Julian Reschke: > Am 31.08.2022 um 18:50 schrieb RFC Errata System: >> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9110, >> "HTTP Semantics". >> >> -------------------------------------- >> You may review the report below and at: >> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7109 >> >> -------------------------------------- >> Type: Technical >> Reported by: Gary Wilson Jr. <gary.wilson@gmail.com> >> >> Section: 15.4.9 >> >> Original Text >> ------------- >> The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target >> resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future >> references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs. >> >> Corrected Text >> -------------- >> The 308 (Permanent Redirect) status code indicates that the target >> resource has been assigned a new permanent URI and any future >> references to this resource ought to use one of the enclosed URIs. >> The user agent MUST NOT change the request method if it performs >> an automatic redirection to that URI. >> >> and/or add note as is present in RFC 7538, e.g.: >> >> Note: This status code is similar to 301 (Moved Permanently) >> (Section 15.4.2), except that it does not allow changing >> the request method from POST to GET. >> >> Notes >> ----- >> The current text in this section for 308 Permanent Redirect does not >> include any mention of the user agent not changing the request method. >> I am suggesting that similar wording be used as in 15.4.8. 307 >> Temporary Redirect and/or a note added similar to the one present in >> RFC 7538 but excluded from this section's current text. Whichever is >> chosen, it would be good to make the wording/notes consistent across >> both the 307 and 308 status code sections. >> >> 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. >> >> -------------------------------------- >> RFC9110 (draft-ietf-httpbis-semantics-19) >> -------------------------------------- >> Title : HTTP Semantics >> Publication Date : June 2022 >> Author(s) : R. Fielding, Ed., M. Nottingham, Ed., J. >> Reschke, Ed. >> Category : INTERNET STANDARD >> Source : HTTP >> Area : Applications and Real-Time >> Stream : IETF >> Verifying Party : IESG > > The text is entirely correct and consistent with what the spec says > about code 307. 301 and 302 are the exceptions and thus carry notes > about potential method rewriting. > > Best regards, Julian Dear RFC Editor, could you please close this erratum as "rejected"? Best regards, Julian -- <green/>bytes GmbH, Hafenweg 16, D-48155 Münster, Germany Amtsgericht Münster: HRB5782
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2022 09:28:37 UTC