[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

RFC Errata System
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 <[hidden email]>

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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Mark Nottingham-2
I think this is APPROVE.


> On 27 Jun 2016, at 8:46 AM, RFC Errata System <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>
> 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/





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Ben Campbell
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
>> <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>
>> 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/

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Mark Nottingham-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> 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/





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Martin Thomson-3

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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> 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/




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Mike Bishop

I would (belatedly – vacation) agree with Martin; correct in the original, but clearer in the proposed.

 

From: Martin Thomson [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 2:30 PM
To: Mark Nottingham <[hidden email]>
Cc: Kazu Yamamoto <[hidden email]>; HTTP Working Group <[hidden email]>; RFC Errata System <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; Ben Campbell <[hidden email]>; Mike Belshe > <[hidden email]>
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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
>>>
>>> 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/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Mark Nottingham-2
OK. Let's call it Hold for Update.

> On 9 Aug 2016, at 5:23 AM, Mike Bishop <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I would (belatedly – vacation) agree with Martin; correct in the original, but clearer in the proposed.
>  
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 2:30 PM
> To: Mark Nottingham <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Kazu Yamamoto <[hidden email]>; HTTP Working Group <[hidden email]>; RFC Errata System <[hidden email]>; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; Ben Campbell <[hidden email]>; Mike Belshe > <[hidden email]>
> 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" <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> >>>
> >>> 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/