- From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:46:36 -0800 (PST)
- To: erik@schnell-ahaus.de, mike@belshe.com, fenix@google.com, martin.thomson@gmail.com
- Cc: barryleiba@computer.org, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
The following errata report has been held for document update 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 -------------------------------------- Status: Held for Document Update Type: Technical Reported by: Erik Schnell <erik@schnell-ahaus.de> Date Reported: 2015-11-17 Held by: Barry Leiba (IESG) Section: 5.1 Original Text ------------- (content of Figure 2) Corrected Text -------------- (see notes, below) Notes ----- Section 5.1 Figure 2 is unclear about what stream is being depicted when PUSH_PROMISE is used. The figure shows a transition from /idle/ to /reserved (local)/ on a PUSH_PROMISE receive, but Section 6.6 only allows PUSH_PROMISE to be sent on a stream that is in /open/ or /half-closed (remote)/ state. But these are talking about different streams. 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. -------------------------------------- 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
Received on Thursday, 19 November 2015 22:48:30 UTC