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

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4645)

From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:21:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CALaySJL_+-+E+BSkqUJaEP=nfCyxYObMoqN9Fr-vV1BR5mU20A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Megan Ferguson <mferguson@amsl.com>
Cc: RFC 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>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> Would you like to update EID 4535 (HFDU) to include more
> information — perhaps to provide readers more context on the error?

I don't think so: I think the note in 4535 already says what it needs to.


> On Mar 29, 2016, at 4:29 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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 Thursday, 31 March 2016 02:21:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 31 March 2016 02:22:02 UTC