Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

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.

Barry

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:11 PM,  <[e-mail]> wrote:
> If there were a deliberate choice to omit the "minor" version number, such needs to be stated in the RFC.  Such a choice is actually omitted, and thus I see no such intent.  What results at best is a conflict between two RFC's, and at least, an implementation error by the group which authored the HTTP/2 library I cited, which is in turn adopted by Apache, the most common HTTP server software used on the Internet (per the Netcraft survey).  I raised this as an error because I do not believe that it was the intent of this RFC to break an earlier RFC with which it claims backward compatibility in the majority of HTTP servers on the Internet.
>
> --------------------------------------------
> On Tue, 4/12/16, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>  Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)
>  To: "RFC Errata System" <[e-mail]>
>  Cc: "Mike Belshe" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], "Martin Thomson" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
>  Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016, 12:31 AM
>
>  REJECT; HTTP is not
>  defined by the CGI specification, and the WG made a
>  conscious choice to omit the minor version number.
>
>  Updating the CGI specification
>  is more appropriate (although an errata may not be the best
>  way to do it for that spec either).
>
>  Cheers,
>
>
>  >
>  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/
>
>
>