I would (belatedly – vacation) agree with Martin; correct in the original, but clearer in the proposed.
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 2:30 PM
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>
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)
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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/