Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7541 (7372)

Curious bystander hat on.

AFAIK the third request is not intended to have a "cache-contol: no-cache"
field in it. This is true for example C.3 as well.

The dynamic table and headers list are allowed to diverge in practice. In
the examples, the dynamic table gets modified by the second request that
inserts "cache-contol: no-cache". In the third request, while the dynamic
table still contains the value of "cache-contol: no-cache", since the
header list (the input) doesn't contain a cache-control, and the encoded
data doesn't contain an instruction that refers to the cache-control
dynamic entry, then the decoded header list can't contain it.

The suggested change here would make the input header list and the decoded
header list different, which is incorrect and unexpected.

I'm curious where your decoder is failing on this.

Cheers,
Lucas


On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 3:57 PM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7541,
> "HPACK: Header Compression for HTTP/2".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7372
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Jamal Moore <jamaltmoore@outlook.com>
>
> Section: C.4.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>    Decoded header list:
>
>    :method: GET
>    :scheme: https
>    :path: /index.html
>    :authority: www.example.com
>    custom-key: custom-value
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    Decoded header list:
>
>    :method: GET
>    :scheme: https
>    :path: /index.html
>    :authority: www.example.com
>    cache-control: no-cache
>    custom-key: custom-value
>
> Notes
> -----
> After the first two requests, the cache-control is added to the header
> list and dynamic table. After the third request, the value should be in
> both the header list and dynamic table but the document does not show it in
> the header list.  This causes automated tests to fail when implementing
> HPack decoder.
>
> 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
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7541 (draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression-12)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : HPACK: Header Compression for HTTP/2
> Publication Date    : May 2015
> Author(s)           : R. Peon, H. Ruellan
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>
>