RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 3 records.

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

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: Rejected (2)

RFC 7234, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Caching", June 2014

Source of RFC: httpbis (app)

Errata ID: 4479

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Florian Best
Date Reported: 2015-09-20
Rejected by: Barry Leiba
Date Rejected: 2015-09-20

Section 5.3 says:

   The Expires value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in 
   <a href="#section-7.1.1.1">Section</a>
   <a href="#section-7.1.1.1">7.1.1.1</a> of 
[<a href="./rfc7231" title="&quot;Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1)
   : Semantics and Content&quot;">RFC7231</a>].

It should say:

   The Expires value is an HTTP-date timestamp, as defined in 
   <a href="./rfc7231#section-7.1.1.1">Section</a>
   <a href="./rfc7231#section-7.1.1.1">7.1.1.1</a> of 
[<a href="./rfc7231" title="&quot;Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1)
   : Semantics and Content&quot;">RFC7231</a>].

Notes:

The anchor should link to RFC 7231. It links to the not-existing section in RFC 7234 itself.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
The links are not in the RFCs, but in the HTML tools rendering. The errata system isn't for that.

Errata ID: 4616

Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial

Reported By: Brian Chang
Date Reported: 2016-02-08
Rejected by: Alexey Melnikov
Date Rejected: 2017-02-23

Throughout the document, when it says:

(See Section 3.2 for additional details related to the use of public in
 response to a request containing Authorization, and Section 3 for 
 details of how public affects responses that would normally not be 
 stored, due to their status codes not being defined as cacheable 
 by default; see Section 4.2.2.)

has a status code that is defined as cacheable by default 
(see Section 4.2.2), or

It should say:

(See Section 3.2 for additional details related to the use of public in
 response to a request containing Authorization, and Section 3 for 
 details of how public affects responses that would normally not be 
 stored, due to their status codes not being defined as cacheable 
 by default; see Section 6.1 of [RFC7231].)

has a status code that is defined as cacheable by default 
(see Section 6.1 of [RFC7231]), or

Notes:

Section 4.2.2 is titled "Calculating Heuristic Freshness" but is referenced in the original text when talking about status codes. This is confusing despite having a reference to Section 6.1 of RFC7231 buried within the text.

There are other references to 4.2.2 as well, but those actually talk about heuristic freshness.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
See HTTPBIS mailing list discussion.

Report New Errata