Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

OK. Let's call it Hold for Update.

> On 9 Aug 2016, at 5:23 AM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 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> 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/
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

Received on Tuesday, 9 August 2016 00:03:16 UTC