Re: [Moderator Action] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)

On 2016-04-12 23:14, wrote:
> Rebuttal:
> 1)  The CGI interface variable is supposed to report the protocol version used between server and client.  Per RFC 3875, it has a specified format.  RFC 7540 did NOT change that format.  "HTTP/2.0" is the required generated string from the ABNF.  Addressing the RFC 1796 comment, RFC 7540 simply contained no authority or directive to change the string, whether [future] standard or informational.
> 2)  Although HTTP/2 does NOT communicate its version number between server and client in any header using its binary format (by design), there is still the HTTP/1.1 direct upgrade mechanism mentioned in RFC 7540, section 3.5, that clearly has a "HTTP/2.0" substring in the "client connection preface" string.  If things were as you say, shouldn't the ".0" part have been omitted?
> RFC 2616, aka "HTTP 1.1", is an Internet standard (after 26 years, it certainly has been promoted from "draft").  I fully expect RFC 7540 to follow that path, especially as it is a "standards track" class RFC document.  A standard, by definition, is enforceable.  RFC 7230, updating 2616, in section 2.6, still defines the http-version string with the same ABNF as RFC 3875, thus no meaningful update.  Although not used in the actual client/server exchange as it was in HTTP 1.1 and earlier, it's still in use in the logs and the CGI interface WITHOUT any syntax change.

FWIW, RFC 2616 is a "draft" standard, and it was obsoleted by RFC723*, 
currently "proposed". I agree that at some point, the HTTP specs should 
be full internet standards, but right now, they are not.

> ...

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 15 April 2016 06:13:49 UTC