Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

> REJECT; HTTP is not defined by the CGI specification, and the WG made
> a conscious choice to omit the minor version number.

Indeed.

> Updating the CGI specification is more appropriate (although an errata may
> not be the best way to do it for that spec either).

Not "may not be": is not -- RFC 3875 was correct about this at the
time it was written.  It might be that 7540 should have updated 3875
with this, but it didn't, and I don't think that fits into an errata
report either.  We could consider writing a quick draft that updates
3875, if we think that's appropriate.

This stuff is still going to me, and not to Alexey; I'm adding Alexey
to this, and he can handle rejecting the errata report.

Barry

>> On 12 Apr 2016, at 5:19 PM, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> 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=4663
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Type: Technical
>> Reported by: D. Stussy <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Section: 8 omits
>>
>> Original Text
>> -------------
>> [Note:  RFC 3875, section 4.1.16, defines the protocol version as:
>>
>> HTTP-Version = "HTTP" "/" 1*digit "." 1*digit
>>
>> Nothing in RFC 7540 redefines this.]
>>
>> Corrected Text
>> --------------
>> Add paragraph at end of section 8 (before 8.1) - Clarification:
>>
>> HTTP/2 preserves the format of the SERVER_PROTOCOL CGI variable,
>> both in the CGI interface and for any server logging purposes.  Where
>> a version string is necessary, it is "HTTP/2.0" as defined by RFC 3875.
>>
>> Notes
>> -----
>> Compatibility is required with a prior published RFC, or a specific change superseding the prior RFC need be explicitly stated.  This RFC states in its abstract:
>>
>> "This specification is an alternative to, but does not obsolete, the HTTP/1.1 message syntax.  HTTP's existing semantics remain unchanged"
>>
>> RFC 7540, section 3.5's connection preface string containing "HTTP/2.0" implies that the RFC authors should have forseen this issue, and added a paragraph to section 8 to explicitly state no change in the CGI interface variable SERVER_PROTOCOL was desired.  At least one implementation is using a version string of "HTTP/2", not "HTTP/2.0", because of how it is referred in this RFC. ("nghttp2.org" has incorrectly implemented this in its library routines.)
>>
>> 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/
>
>
>
>