W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4645)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:29:00 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnU7rqu8aF=dEJtrwg2xcdL4ustA6AVjwcQSJ9y5Cdr-Vg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, jingzl@microsoft.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29 March 2016 at 19:05, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> According to the description above and the state transformation in Figure 2, a stream in the 'idle' state could receive a PUSH_PROMISE frame.

Do we have a Most Often Reported Erratum award?

The text says "another stream" and has a note that explains this, and
yet the diagram is still causing problems.

As reported, this is invalid.  Can we close this as a duplicate and
reference Erratum 4535?
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 08:29:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 08:29:31 UTC