- From: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
- Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:21:29 -0400
- 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. Barry > 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