Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4205)

I was not talking about the danger of an HTTP/1.1-proxy sending the
request and then immediately closing the connection. I was talking
that the rules prohibit the following scenario: an HTTP/1.1 proxy
sends an HTTP/1.1-request to an HTTP/1.0-server (the proxy knows  by
some means that the server is an origin server of HTTP/1.0 version)
with "Connection: keep-alive" header, the server sends an
HTTP/1.0-response with "Connection: keep-alive" header in it.

This response is current, and the bullets mandate that the connection
will close after receiving it: the first bullet doesn't apply since
the "close" option is not present, second bullet doesn't apply because
the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the third bullet does not apply
since the recipient *is* a proxy, and thus the final bullet "The
connection will close after the current response" applies.

2014-12-23 18:39 GMT+03:00, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>:
> I don't see the problem here.  You do have to read the paragraphs
> before the bullet list, which clearly talk about the request/response
> pair -- there's no danger of reading this to mean that a connection
> will be closed between the two.  Apart from that, no, this bullet is
> not meant to introduce the later "MUST NOT"; these bullets clearly
> state the conditions under which connections remain persistent,
> independent of other advice about how to make that happen.
>
> Roy or Julian, do you see a need for any change here?
>
> Barry
>
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:16 AM, RFC Errata System
> <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
>> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
>> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> You may review the report below and at:
>> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4205
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Editorial
>> Reported by: Semyon Kholodnov <joker.vd@gmail.com>
>>
>> Section: 6.3
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>>    o  If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection
>>       option is present, the recipient is not a proxy, and the recipient
>>       wishes to honor the HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the
>>       connection will persist after the current response; otherwise,
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>>    o  If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection
>>       option is present, either the recipient is not a proxy or the
>>       message is a response, and the recipient wishes to honor the
>>       HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the connection will persist after
>>       the current response; otherwise,
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> This bullet is clearly intended to be there to introduce "A proxy server
>> MUST NOT maintain a persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 client"
>> requirement later in the text; however, as it's worded, it technically
>> also prohibits HTTP/1.1-proxies to maintain a persistent connection with
>> an HTTP/1.0 *server*.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
>> --------------------------------------
>> Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message
>> Syntax and Routing
>> Publication Date    : June 2014
>> Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
>> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
>> Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
>> Area                : Applications
>> Stream              : IETF
>> Verifying Party     : IESG
>>
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2015 08:12:26 UTC