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

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4647)

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:21:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJ+GvGqkWzEw3nWG7u4VPQ9uVwDD0cuLNzdPa+QNtSpROQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, jingzl@microsoft.com, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 4:33 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29 March 2016 at 19:19, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> 2 editorial issues in section 5.1 and section 11.2.
>
>
> Valid.  Though neither demand a change.  Lowercase "may" is
> acceptable, though perhaps a poor choice of word in context.  And
> s/Section/Specification aligns better with the registration template,
> but worse with the document itself.

Actually, I'm going to disagree with the first: I think this is
absolutely not a 2119 "MAY".  The definition of "open" isn't
presenting a protocol option.  It's stating a fact, that this is what
open streams are used for.

> We should mark this "Hold for document update"

Apart from the above, it's not generally a good idea to submit one
errata report for multiple distinct errata.  I ask the submitter to
please re-submit these as two separate reports, declaring the relevant
section in each (not "global").  And I ask the RFC Editor to remove
this report in anticipation of that.

The submitter should also consider that I will mark the "MAY" portion
of the report as "Rejected".  I agree that HFDU is a suitable
disposition for the table heading.

Barry
Received on Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:21:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:22:00 UTC