2

第 4 节，第 34 页：

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.

可能有 5 个错别字，我想知道如何建议更新？注册不可用，因为您在 ietf.org 的帐户应该由……所谓的管理员审核。

PS我知道，RFC不应该经常更新，这些“问题”并不重要，但同样，这是一个基本的事情。它应该尽可能理想。

4

2 回答 2

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.
于 2019-07-29T10:23:23.877 回答
1

之前已经注意到并报告过，反应是

不幸的是，我们无法更新文档，因为已发布的 RFC 不会更改。这已被报告并验证为错误（http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=2616&eid=652）。

确实该死。

于 2019-07-29T10:12:43.303 回答