- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2020 12:42:05 +1000
- To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Cc: Roy Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>, superuser@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, tpauly@apple.com, tgreer@google.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
The comment is technically valid, but as noted, this won't cause interoperability problems, so probably HOLD FOR UPDATE. I've filed <https://github.com/httpwg/http-core/issues/447>. > On 4 Sep 2020, at 12:26 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/eid6279 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Todd Greer <tgreer@google.com> > > Section: 4.2.4 > > Original Text > ------------- > 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). > > > > Corrected Text > -------------- > 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.) > > 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 Friday, 4 September 2020 02:42:32 UTC