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

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4535)

From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 22:24:32 +0200
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "mike@belshe.com" <mike@belshe.com>, "fenix@google.com" <fenix@google.com>, "martin.thomson@gmail.com" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, "mnot@mnot.net" <mnot@mnot.net>, "erik@schnell-ahaus.de" <erik@schnell-ahaus.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <339092AF-F2A9-4D9A-B10F-D19ADB7DD4B3@gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Right. So I guess the right thing to do is to amend the report to add to the notes section as follows:

A note should be added to figure 2 in section 5.1 clarifying that where a push-promise is sent or received, the state diagram is for the promised stream, not the original stream.

Then the errata report can be closed as “held for future update”, meaning that if anyone ever gets to writing a new version of 7540, they should fix this as well.

Yoav

> On 17 Nov 2015, at 7:25 PM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> Not an error, but a lack of resolution in the figure.  As the text states, PUSH_PROMISE can only be sent on a peer-initiated stream in the "open" or "half-closed (remote)" state.  Receipt of that PUSH_PROMISE causes *the promised steam* to transition from "idle" to "reserved."  The figure correctly indicates that the PUSH_PROMISE frame causes that transition, but lacks the resolution to show that the PUSH_PROMISE occurred on a different stream not in the idle state.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RFC Errata System [mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:59 AM
> 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
> Subject: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4535)
> 
> 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 20:25:02 UTC

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