W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2015

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4535)

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
Message-Id: <20151117165916.E7A0E180005@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:

Type: Technical
Reported by: Erik Schnell <erik@schnell-ahaus.de>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text

Corrected Text

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)\\"
\\"PUSH_PROMISE frames MUST only be sent on a peer-initiated stream that is in either the \\"open\\" or \\"half-closed (remote)\\" state.\\"

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:40 UTC