Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4205)

I can buy that change, as a reasonable clarification.  I can edit the new
text when I verify the report.  Semyon, does that work for you?

Barry

On Wednesday, December 24, 2014, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Dec 23, 2014, at 6:16 AM, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
> > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
> > "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > You may review the report below and at:
> > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4205
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> > Type: Editorial
> > Reported by: Semyon Kholodnov <joker.vd@gmail.com <javascript:;>>
> >
> > Section: 6.3
> >
> > Original Text
> > -------------
> >   o  If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection
> >      option is present, the recipient is not a proxy, and the recipient
> >      wishes to honor the HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the
> >      connection will persist after the current response; otherwise,
> >
> > Corrected Text
> > --------------
> >   o  If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection
> >      option is present, either the recipient is not a proxy or the
> >      message is a response, and the recipient wishes to honor the
> >      HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the connection will persist after
> >      the current response; otherwise,
> >
> > Notes
> > -----
> > This bullet is clearly intended to be there to introduce "A proxy server
> MUST NOT maintain a persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 client"
> requirement later in the text; however, as it's worded, it technically also
> prohibits HTTP/1.1-proxies to maintain a persistent connection with an
> HTTP/1.0 *server*.
>
> Verified as editorial.  The corrected text should be
>
>
>   o  If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection
>      option is present in a message that is not a request to a proxy,
>      and the recipient wishes to honor the HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism,
>      the connection will persist after the current response; otherwise,
>
> Thanks for the report.  I don't consider this a significant issue because
> it is just talking about when a connection can be expected to remain
> persistent, whereas the actual requirements on when a connection must be
> closed are specified elsewhere.
>
> ....Roy
>
>