IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 09 August 2016 00:07 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 0383012D0BB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 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=-1.247, 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 lN6RM3LOBNzS for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
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 5C66212B030 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 17:07:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bWuVu-0008RP-H7 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:03:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:03:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bWuVu-0008RP-H7@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bWuVo-0008Qe-AO for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:03:16 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bWuVa-0005dt-8b for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 00:03:04 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 345FE22E253; Mon, 8 Aug 2016 20:02:30 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <BLUPR03MB13306D10F52604F5BA765625871B0@BLUPR03MB1330.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 10:02:26 +1000
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "fenix@google.com" <fenix@google.com>, "alissa@cooperw.in" <alissa@cooperw.in>, "aamelnikov@fastmail.fm" <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, "Mike Belshe >" <mike@belshe.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5A37014A-073B-4A79-95E1-4891128BFB99@mnot.net>
References: <20160627064625.E9A8FB80D5F@rfc-editor.org> <83C394C7-A6CC-4338-ADFE-0E4132A080CC@mnot.net> <345FB8F4-D22A-405B-A3CF-3A99A5F4705D@nostrum.com> <E239B15B-6090-43F5-A34A-FE78D83633C3@mnot.net> <CABkgnnX8UNrhsarGunqTKJBU2wh7W_=mWULxP1Fz1K_ws4Qn+g@mail.gmail.com> <BLUPR03MB13306D10F52604F5BA765625871B0@BLUPR03MB1330.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
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=-9.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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: lisa.w3.org 1bWuVa-0005dt-8b df94694c7be57a668c6d8e15ee198c5b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4720)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/5A37014A-073B-4A79-95E1-4891128BFB99@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32237
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>

OK. Let's call it Hold for Update.

> On 9 Aug 2016, at 5:23 AM, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> I would (belatedly – vacation) agree with Martin; correct in the original, but clearer in the proposed.
>  
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2016 2:30 PM
> To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> Cc: Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp>; HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>; fenix@google.com; alissa@cooperw.in; aamelnikov@fastmail.fm; Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; Mike Belshe > <mike@belshe.com>
> 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" <mnot@mnot.net> 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 <ben@nostrum.com> 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 <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> 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 <kazu@iij.ad.jp>
> >>>
> >>> 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/

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email