errata logo graphic

Found 15 records.

Status: Verified (5)

RFC2616, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", June 1999

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC7230 RFC7231 RFC7232 RFC7233 RFC7234 RFC7235

Source of RFC: http (app)

Errata ID: 408

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Greg Robson
Date Reported: 2001-10-08

Section 3.6 says:

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for
   transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the
   following tokens: "chunked" (section 3.6.1), "identity" (section
   3.6.2), "gzip" (section 3.5), "compress" (section 3.5), and
   "deflate" (section 3.5).

Notes:

There is no section 3.6.2; there is no such thing as Transfer-Coding:
identity in the RFC 2616 specification (note that there would not be
quotes around "identity" in the actual header!).


Errata ID: 412

Status: Verified
Type: Technical

Reported By: Justin Erenkrantz
Date Reported: 2001-01-05
Report Text:

From Scott Lawrence:
All known errata for this HTTP RFC will be found at: 
http://purl.org/NET/http-errata and 
http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP/1.1/rfc2616bis/issues/




Errata ID: 411

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: WooJin Chung
Date Reported: 2006-10-31
Verifier Name: Barry Leiba
Date Verified: 2014-06-03

Section 14.3 says:

The Accept-Encoding request-header field is similar to Accept, but
restricts the content-codings (section 3.5) that are acceptable in
the response.

       Accept-Encoding  = "Accept-Encoding" ":"

                          1#( codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
       codings          = ( content-coding | "*" )

 Examples of its use are:

       Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
       Accept-Encoding:
       Accept-Encoding: *
       Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0
       Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0

It should say:

The Accept-Encoding request-header field is similar to Accept, but
restricts the content-codings (section 3.5) that are acceptable in
the response.

       Accept-Encoding  = "Accept-Encoding" ":"

                          1#( codings [ ";" "q" "=" qvalue ] )
       codings          = ( content-coding | "*" )

 Examples of its use are:

       Accept-Encoding: compress, gzip
       Accept-Encoding: *
       Accept-Encoding: compress;q=0.5, gzip;q=1.0
       Accept-Encoding: gzip;q=1.0, identity; q=0.5, *;q=0

Notes:

As you can see, Accept-Encoding has to consist of 1 or more ( codings [ ";"
"q" "=" qvalue ] ). So you can't just leave the value of "Accept-Encoding:"
empty. The second example is, therefore, incorrect.

------------------------------------------------
Alexey: This issue was fixed in HTTPBIS WG, see <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/ticket/25>


Errata ID: 652

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Justin Erenkrantz
Date Reported: 2000-12-23

Section 4.4 says:

4.If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
  ransfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-
  elimiting media type defines the transfer-length. This media type
  UST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can arse
  it; the presence in a request of a Range header with ultiple byte-
  range specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the lient can parse
  multipart/byteranges responses.

It should say:

4.If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
  Transfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-
  delimiting media type defines the transfer-length. This media type
  MUST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can parse
  it; the presence in a request of a Range header with multiple byte-
  range specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the client can parse
  multipart/byteranges responses.

Notes:

Missing the first character of 6 words.


Errata ID: 653

Status: Verified
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Justin Erenkrantz
Date Reported: 2000-12-23

Section 1.3 says:

Each of these representations is termed a `varriant'.

It should say:

Each of these representations is termed a `variant'.



Status: Held for Document Update (5)

RFC2616, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", June 1999

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC7230 RFC7231 RFC7232 RFC7233 RFC7234 RFC7235

Source of RFC: http (app)

Errata ID: 3407

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Technical

Reported By: Thomas Lane
Date Reported: 2012-11-14
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba
Date Held: 2012-11-27

Section 2.2 says:

   Comments can be included in some HTTP header fields by surrounding
   the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed in
   fields containing "comment" as part of their field value definition.
   In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field
   value.

       comment        = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
       ctext          = <any TEXT excluding "(" and ")">

   A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using
   double-quote marks.

       quoted-string  = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
       qdtext         = <any TEXT except <">>

   The backslash character ("\") MAY be used as a single-character
   quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs.

       quoted-pair    = "\" CHAR

It should say:

   Comments can be included in some HTTP header fields by surrounding
   the comment text with parentheses. Comments are only allowed in
   fields containing "comment" as part of their field value definition.
   In all other fields, parentheses are considered part of the field
   value.

       comment        = "(" *( ctext | quoted-pair | comment ) ")"
       ctext          = <any TEXT excluding "\", "(" and ")">

   A string of text is parsed as a single word if it is quoted using
   double-quote marks.

       quoted-string  = ( <"> *(qdtext | quoted-pair ) <"> )
       qdtext         = <any TEXT excluding "\" and <">>

   The backslash character ("\") MAY be used as a single-character
   quoting mechanism only within quoted-string and comment constructs.

       quoted-pair    = "\" CHAR

Notes:

Allowing "\" in qdtext and ctext creates ambiguous semantics.

Consider:
" \" (\ was a qdtext, so string has terminated)
" \""(\ is part of the quoted pair \")
" \ " (Is this an escaped space or a bare backslash?)
" \\"" (first \ is qdtext and second \ is part of quoted-pair \")

Analogous examples would work for ctext and comment, as well.

It looks to me as though the intended meaning was for the implementer to consider "\" part of a quoted-pair whenever possible. It's always possible, so the obvious fix would be to exclude it from ctext and qdtext, and use \\ whenever the user desires a textual backslash.

--- VERIFIER NOTES ---
This issue is already being dealt with in the HTTP 1.1 work in the HTTPBIS working group. The 2616 updates, which will be published soon, will include fixes for this.


Errata ID: 892

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: WooJin Chung
Date Reported: 2006-10-31
Held for Document Update by: Peter Saint-Andre

Section 4.4 says:

4.  If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
     ransfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-
     elimiting media type defines the transfer-length.

It should say:

4.  If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
     transfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-
     elimiting media type defines the transfer-length.


Errata ID: 1483

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Martin Kong
Date Reported: 2008-08-06
Held for Document Update by: Peter Saint-Andre

Section 3.6 says:

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for
   transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the
   following tokens: "chunked" (section 3.6.1), "identity" (section
   3.6.2), "gzip" (section 3.5), "compress" (section 3.5), and "deflate"
   (section 3.5).

It should say:

   The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) acts as a registry for
   transfer-coding value tokens. Initially, the registry contains the
   following tokens: "chunked" (section 3.6.1), "identity" (section
   3.5), "gzip" (section 3.5), "compress" (section 3.5), and "deflate"
   (section 3.5).

Notes:

The tokens for Content-Codings are defined in section 3.5. These include the identity token.


Errata ID: 1619

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Heming Hou
Date Reported: 2008-11-25
Held for Document Update by: Peter Saint-Andre

Section 4.4 says:

   4.If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
     ransfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-
     elimiting media type defines the transfer-length. This media type
     UST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can arse
     it; the presence in a request of a Range header with ultiple byte-
     range specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the lient can parse
     multipart/byteranges responses.

It should say:

   4.If the message uses the media type "multipart/byteranges", and the
     transfer-length is not otherwise specified, then this self-
     delimiting media type defines the transfer-length. This media type
     MUST NOT be used unless the sender knows that the recipient can parse
     it; the presence in a request of a Range header with multiple byte-
     range specifiers from a 1.1 client implies that the client can parse
     multipart/byteranges responses.

Notes:

> "ransfer-length" should be "transfer-length"
> "self-elimiting" should be "self-delimiting";
> "UST"should be "MUST";
> "arse"should be "parse";
> "ultiple"should be "multiple";
> "lient"should be "client";


Errata ID: 3206

Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial

Reported By: ValCot
Date Reported: 2012-04-27
Held for Document Update by: Barry Leiba

Section 1.3 says:

   variant
      A resource may have one, or more than one, representation(s)
      associated with it at any given instant. Each of these
      representations is termed a `varriant'.  Use of the term `variant'
      does not necessarily imply that the resource is subject to content
      negotiation.


It should say:

   variant
      A resource may have one, or more than one, representation(s)
      associated with it at any given instant. Each of these
      representations is termed a `variant'.  Use of the term `variant'
      does not necessarily imply that the resource is subject to content
      negotiation.


Notes:

"varriant" Is this misspelling?


Status: Rejected (5)

RFC2616, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", June 1999

Note: This RFC has been obsoleted by RFC7230 RFC7231 RFC7232 RFC7233 RFC7234 RFC7235

Source of RFC: http (app)

Errata ID: 2301

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Conrad Roche
Date Reported: 2010-06-14
Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov
Date Rejected: 2010-07-07

Section 14.36 says:

   The Referer[sic] request-header field allows the client to specify,
   for the server's benefit, the address (URI) of the resource from
   which the Request-URI was obtained (the "referrer", although the
   header field is misspelled.) The Referer request-header allows a
   server to generate lists of back-links to resources for interest,
   logging, optimized caching, etc. It also allows obsolete or mistyped
   links to be traced for maintenance. The Referer field MUST NOT be
   sent if the Request-URI was obtained from a source that does not have
   its own URI, such as input from the user keyboard.

It should say:

   The Referer[sic] request-header field allows the client to specify,
   for the server's benefit, the address (URI) of the resource from

   whose message-body the Request-URI was obtained (the "referrer", although the
   header field is misspelled.) The Referer request-header allows a
   server to generate lists of back-links to resources for interest,
   logging, optimized caching, etc. It also allows obsolete or mistyped
   links to be traced for maintenance. The Referer field MUST NOT be
   sent if the Request-URI was obtained from a source that does not have
   its own URI, such as input from the user keyboard.

Notes:

The text should mention that the referrer is specified when the URI was obtained from the message-body of the Request-URI.

For instance, when the user agent receives a 302 response for a Request-URI, it does not specify the original Request-URI in the referrer header for the subsequent request - even though the (redirect) URI "was obtained" from the (header of the) 302 response for the original Request-URI.

Roy T. Fielding replied:
I think this should be rejected. The referrer is the redirect.
User agents should be sending the redirecting URI in Referer,
or sending nothing in Referer.

In any case, see the Link header field. It is certainly possible
to be referred by something in the header fields, so saying that it
is in the message-body would be incorrect.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
As per the reply from Roy T. Fielding.


Errata ID: 2998

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Julien Moutinho
Date Reported: 2011-10-15
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2011-10-17

Section 3.2.1 says:

   For definitive information on
   URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI):
   Generic Syntax and Semantics," RFC 2396 [42] (which replaces RFCs
   1738 [4] and RFC 1808 [11]).

It should say:

   For definitive information on
   URL syntax and semantics, see "Uniform Resource Identifiers (URI):
   Generic Syntax and Semantics," RFC 3986 [<ref>] (which updates RFCs
   1738 [4] and replaces RFC 1808 [11] and RFC 2396 [42]).

Notes:

<ref> should be added
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The reader can follow the chain of document updates from RFC 2396 to RFC 3986, which is why we do not modify published RFCs to track document updates for referenced specifications. In any case, the updated HTTP RFCs (being produced by the HTTPBIS WG) will contain the appropriate references.


Errata ID: 3056

Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported By: Julien Moutinho
Date Reported: 2011-12-20
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2011-12-21

Section 5.1.2 says:

Request-URI    = "*" | absoluteURI | abs_path | authority

It should say:

Request-URI    = "*" | absoluteURI | abs_path [ "?" query ] | authority

Notes:

so that "/path?query" is a valid Request-URI as it should.

because it is not the case with RFC 3986
(obsoleting RFC 2396 which has the same problem actually):

absoluteURI = absolute-URI
abs_path = path-absolute

absolute-URI = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
path-absolute = "/" [ segment-nz *( "/" segment ) ]
segment-nz = 1*pchar
segment = *pchar
pchar = unreserved / pct-encoded / sub-delims / ":" / "@"
unreserved = ALPHA / DIGIT / "-" / "." / "_" / "~"
pct-encoded = "%" HEXDIG HEXDIG
sub-delims = "!" / "$" / "&" / "'" / "(" / ")" / "*" / "+" / "," / ";" / "="
--VERIFIER NOTES--
This issue has been fixed in the revisions to RFC 2616, see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/trac/changeset/76


Errata ID: 2645

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Winfred Qin
Date Reported: 2010-11-27
Rejected by: Peter Saint-Andre
Date Rejected: 2011-05-03

Section 3.5 says:

Use of program names for the identification of encoding formats 
is not desirable and is discouraged for future encodings. Their 
use here is representative of historical practice, not good 
design. For compatibility with previous implementations of HTTP, 
applications SHOULD consider "x-gzip" and "x-compress" to be 
equivalent to "gzip" and "compress" respectively.

It should say:

Use of program names for the identification of encoding formats 
is not desirable and is discouraged for future encodings. Their 
use here is representative of historical practice, not good 
design. For compatibility with future implementations of HTTP, 
applications SHOULD consider "x-gzip" and "x-compress" to be 
equivalent to "gzip" and "compress" respectively.

Notes:

"For compatibility with previous implementations of HTTP",
here, 'previous' should be replaced by 'future'.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
Comment by Peter Saint-Andre:

This erratum is incorrect -- the text is clearly about
backward compatibility, not forward compatibility. The
original poster can comment in the HTTPBIS WG about this
matter since draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging has very
similar text.


Errata ID: 2806

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Carlos McEvilly
Date Reported: 2011-05-12
Rejected by: RFC Editor
Date Rejected: 2011-05-16

Section 14.13 says:

Applications SHOULD use this field to indicate the transfer-length of
   the message-body, unless this is prohibited by the rules in <a href="#section-   ">section</a>
   <a href="#section-   ">4.4</a>.

It should say:

Applications SHOULD use this field to indicate the transfer-length of
   the message-body, unless this is prohibited by the rules in 
<a href="#section-4.4">section 4.4</a>.

Notes:

This errata refers to the linkified version of the RFC at:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2616

Note that the original and corrected text above both contain HTML tags. In case the text doesn't survive the form submission, just to describe the problem, the link in the text shown, an internal anchor link that should point to #section-4.4, is broken because the number 4.4 is missing at the end of the anchor inside the href quotes.

--- VERIFIER NOTES ---
This report has been rejected because it is regarding a link in the HTML version of the RFC on tools.ietf.org. The report has been directed to webmaster@tools.ietf.org.

Errata are for the RFCs as available from rfc-editor.org.


Report New Errata