Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4535)

I'm happy to do that if that's the consensus.  Martin, does that make sense
to you?

Barry

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:;>> 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 <javascript:;>
> ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 8:59 AM
> > To: mike@belshe.com <javascript:;>; fenix@google.com <javascript:;>;
> martin.thomson@gmail.com <javascript:;>; barryleiba@computer.org
> <javascript:;>; mnot@mnot.net <javascript:;>
> > Cc: erik@schnell-ahaus.de <javascript:;>; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> <javascript:;>; rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org <javascript:;>
> > 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 <javascript:;>>
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>