- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 08:59:16 -0800 (PST)
- To: mike@belshe.com, fenix@google.com, martin.thomson@gmail.com, barryleiba@computer.org, mnot@mnot.net
- Cc: erik@schnell-ahaus.de, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7540, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7540&eid=4535 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Erik Schnell <erik@schnell-ahaus.de> Section: GLOBAL Original Text ------------- Corrected Text -------------- Notes ----- Section 5.1 (fig. 2) and section 6.6 are contradictory. While the figure in 5.1 shows a transition from \\"idle\\" to \\"reserved (local)\\" on a PUSH_PROMISE receive, section 6.6 mentions: \\"A sender MUST NOT send a PUSH_PROMISE on a stream unless that stream is either \\"open\\" or \\"half-closed (remote)\\" AND \\"PUSH_PROMISE frames MUST only be sent on a peer-initiated stream that is in either the \\"open\\" or \\"half-closed (remote)\\" state.\\" 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. -------------------------------------- RFC7540 (draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17) -------------------------------------- Title : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2) Publication Date : May 2015 Author(s) : M. Belshe, R. Peon, M. Thomson, Ed. Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP Area : Applications Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG
Received on Tuesday, 17 November 2015 17:01:02 UTC