IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 20 January 2017 01:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4553129493 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:30:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vosQiyGWRzRJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A2AC1293F3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 17:30:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cUNSW-0007IW-JR for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:53:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:53:40 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cUNSW-0007IW-JR@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cUNSU-0007HJ-4e for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:53:38 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cUNSO-0002PY-1u for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:53:32 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 795DC22E259; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:52:49 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <162094316.1891646.1460484574532.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 11:52:45 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, d.stussy@yahoo.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B55B655E-A21B-4195-AE35-015A3A50DB21@mnot.net>
References: <162094316.1891646.1460484574532.JavaMail.yahoo.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <162094316.1891646.1460484574532.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.516, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cUNSO-0002PY-1u 4015f0199431b13dfd8f693af7ebbadf
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/B55B655E-A21B-4195-AE35-015A3A50DB21@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33337
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

REJECT. As discussed, this isn't an issue for the HTTP specification.


> On 13 Apr 2016, at 4:10 am, d.stussy@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> It breaks the CGI interface, which per RFC 3875 is expecting the SERVER_PROTOCOL variable to contain "HTTP/2.0", not "HTTP/2".  It may also break any server log analysis tools which depend on the ANBF syntax as the variable may also appear in the logs.
> 
> RFC 3875, Section 4.1.16 ABNF:
> 
>   HTTP-Version      = "HTTP" "/" 1*digit "." 1*digit
> 
> The "minor" number is not optional.  If this has been changed, RFC 7540 needs to say so.  It doesn't.
> 
> Personally, I don't care if this is handled via an errata or another RFC which clarifies the conflict.
> 
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 4/12/16, Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org> wrote:
> I don't understand how it breaks anything: when you use HTTP/1.1, you have the minor version.  When you use HTTP/2, you're using a server that understands HTTP/2 and knows what to expect.  Please explain where the problem occurs.
> ...
> 
> 
> 

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email