2

Section 4, page 34:

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

There are probably 5 typos, and I wonder how can I suggest an update? Registration is not available as it is, because your account at ietf.org should be reviewed by... so-called administrator.

P. S. I know, RFC shouldn't be updated often, and these "issues" are not crucial, but again, this is a fundamental thing. It should be as ideal as possible.

Tarasovych
  • 2,228
  • 3
  • 19
  • 51

2 Answers2

1

It's been noticed before and reported, the response was

Unfortunately, we can't update the document, as published RFCs don't change. This was already reported and verified as an error (http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2616&eid=652).

Arse it indeed.

Paul Dixon
  • 295,876
  • 54
  • 310
  • 348
1

The FAQ on rfc-editor.org has an entry for "How can I correct an error in a published RFC?":

You cannot! Once an RFC is published, it cannot be changed. The RFCs form an archival series. If the bug represents a change of content, a revised RFC can be written that obsoletes the one in error. For both technical and editorial errors, the RFC Editor provides a list of errata for published RFCs. Use the RFC Errata page to look up errata by RFC number or view the complete list. Also, search results from the RFC search page include hyperlinks to any corresponding errata entries. To report an error in an RFC, please use the form available from the RFC Errata page (see How to Report Errata for details).

Generally, typographical errors like this are listed as Errata, and corrected next time the RFC is rewritten for some other reason. In this instance both have already happened:

  • The Errata page for RFC 2616 includes this "Editorial" correction.
  • The RFC has been obsoleted by a series of more detailed RFCs starting at RFC 7230. From a brief search it looks like there isn't a directly equivalent section for this paragraph, but if there was, it would undoubtedly have the typos corrected.
IMSoP
  • 89,526
  • 13
  • 117
  • 169