- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 23:30:24 +0200
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Cc: Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, fenix@google.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "Mike Belshe >" <mike@belshe.com>
- Message-ID: <CABkgnnX8UNrhsarGunqTKJBU2wh7W_=mWULxP1Fz1K_ws4Qn+g@mail.gmail.com>
It is - in my view - ok in the original, but much more precise in the revised/proposed form. On 29 Jul 2016 12:27 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > I *think* the clear intent is as is suggested, and it was just an > editorial slip. Martin? > > > On 28 Jul 2016, at 4:25 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote: > > > > Is this really just editorial? > > > > On 28 Jul 2016, at 8:59, Mark Nottingham wrote: > > > >> I think this is APPROVE. > >> > >> > >>> On 27 Jun 2016, at 8:46 AM, RFC Errata System < > rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote: > >>> > >>> 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=4720 > >>> > >>> -------------------------------------- > >>> Type: Editorial > >>> Reported by: Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp> > >>> > >>> Section: 8.2.1 > >>> > >>> Original Text > >>> ------------- > >>> Pushed responses are always associated with an explicit request from > >>> the client. The PUSH_PROMISE frames sent by the server are sent on > >>> that explicit request's stream. > >>> > >>> Corrected Text > >>> -------------- > >>> Promised requests are always associated with an explicit request from > >>> the client. The PUSH_PROMISE frames sent by the server are sent on > >>> that explicit request's stream. > >>> > >>> Notes > >>> ----- > >>> This section talks about promised requests, not pushed responses. > >>> > >>> 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 > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > > > >
Received on Sunday, 31 July 2016 21:30:55 UTC