[hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7692 (4982)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 28 March 2017 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3079B12989F for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:53:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 ngHymmEi8P80 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 819E91294E9 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:53:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id E5282B8128B; Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
To: tyoshino@google.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, Salvatore.Loreto@ericsson.com, Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: moonchild@palemoon.org, hybi@ietf.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Message-Id: <20170328105256.E5282B8128B@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 03:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/hybi/JLVveZiC6298CW-Xy1_3jW_eFXY>
Subject: [hybi] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC7692 (4982)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/hybi/>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:53:08 -0000

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7692,
"Compression Extensions for WebSocket".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7692&eid=4982

--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Mark Straver <moonchild@palemoon.org>

Section: 7.1.1.1

Original Text
-------------
A server MAY include the "server_no_context_takeover" extension
parameter in an extension negotiation response even if the extension
negotiation offer being accepted by the extension negotiation
response didn't include the "server_no_context_takeover" extension
parameter.

Corrected Text
--------------
A server MAY include the "server_no_context_takeover" extension
parameter in an extension negotiation response even if the extension
negotiation offer being accepted by the extension negotiation
response didn't include the "server_no_context_takeover" extension
parameter.
A client SHOULD treat the "server_no_context_takeover" extension
parameter in an extension negotiation response as a hint with no
requirement to provide an implementation, and MUST NOT treat this
parameter, if included in the response, as an invalid configuration.

Notes
-----
It is currently possible for a client and a server to implement per spec and fail to make a connection.

There is no requirement for a client to implement this purely optional parameter, nor to understand this parameter if not implemented. If not supported, this would result in an invalid configuration. As a result, point 7 mandates that the socket connection MUST be closed.
This will only occur if a client has no implementation for this parameter and does not understand/accept the parameter, and the server sends an unsolicited "server_no_context_takeover" parameter in its response, which is allowed.

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  
can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7692 (draft-ietf-hybi-permessage-compression-28)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Compression Extensions for WebSocket
Publication Date    : December 2015
Author(s)           : T. Yoshino
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : BiDirectional or Server-Initiated HTTP
Area                : Applications and Real-Time
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG