Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4665)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 03:45:00 -0700 (PDT)

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7233,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7233&eid=4665

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Amichai Rothman <[email-masked]>

Section: 3.1

Original Text
-------------

Corrected Text
--------------
If all of the preconditions are true and the target representation
length is zero, the server SHOULD send a 200 (OK) response.

Notes
-----
An empty representation is unsatisfiable according to section 2.1, but not unsatisfiable according to section 4.4 if the first-byte-pos is zero. An empty 200 response is the simplest solution to this contradiction, since it is a valid response anyway (if the server chooses to ignore the Range header), clients already handle it properly, it provides all necessary information to the client, and stating it explicitly can prevent subtle edge-case pitfalls in both the RFC and its implementations.

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 (IESG)
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7233 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p5-range-26)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Range Requests
Publication Date    : June 2014
Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., Y. Lafon, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:08:14 +1000

REJECT - this is not an erratum. Please raise an issue here:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http11bis/issues

> On 13 Apr 2016, at 8:45 PM, RFC Errata System <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/