Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7233 (4664)

From: RFC Errata System <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:41:40 -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=4664

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

Section: 4.4

Original Text
-------------
The 416 (Range Not Satisfiable) status code indicates that none of
the ranges in the request's Range header field (Section 3.1) overlap
the current extent of the selected resource or that the set of ranges
requested has been rejected due to invalid ranges or an excessive
request of small or overlapping ranges.

Corrected Text
--------------
The 416 (Range Not Satisfiable) status code indicates that none of
the ranges in the request's Range header field (Section 3.1) overlap
the current extent of the selected representation or that the set of
ranges requested has been rejected due to invalid ranges or an excessive
request of small or overlapping ranges.

Notes
-----
The overlap may depend on the representation, not only the resource, as is the case with byte ranges.

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: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:40:02 +0200

On 2016-04-13 10:41, RFC Errata System wrote:
> ...

I agree that "representation" would have been the correct term here.

Best regards, Julian