RE: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

RFC 3875 is also Informational, which I interpret as saying that it describes what existing implementations already do, rather than normatively describing an interoperable protocol.  A draft updating it should also comment on what existing implementations do.

IIRC, we opted to continue pushing "HTTP/1.1" in the manifested request line string for app-compat reasons, and added an explicit request version field that indicates 1.1 or 2 for server apps that have been updated to check it (if they care).

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 5:48 AM
To: Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>; Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>
Cc: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>; Mike Belshe <[e-mail]>; Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>; Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; HTTP Working Group <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)

> 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/
>
>
>
>