Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4663)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

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/