W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2022

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9110 (7109)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2022 16:49:56 +0100
Message-ID: <f57ff661-c4a6-327b-ea34-f3c09c57efd9@gmx.de>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 31.08.2022 18:50, RFC Errata System wrote:
> 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

I believe this erratum should be set to "editorial verified".

Best regards, Julian
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2022 15:50:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Saturday, 28 January 2023 21:29:46 UTC