Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7230 (4205)

I don't see the problem here.  You do have to read the paragraphs
before the bullet list, which clearly talk about the request/response
pair -- there's no danger of reading this to mean that a connection
will be closed between the two.  Apart from that, no, this bullet is
not meant to introduce the later "MUST NOT"; these bullets clearly
state the conditions under which connections remain persistent,
independent of other advice about how to make that happen.

Roy or Julian, do you see a need for any change here?

Barry

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 9:16 AM, RFC Errata System
<rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7230,
> "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7230&eid=4205
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Semyon Kholodnov <joker.vd@gmail.com>
>
> Section: 6.3
>
> Original Text
> -------------
>    o  If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection
>       option is present, the recipient is not a proxy, and the recipient
>       wishes to honor the HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the
>       connection will persist after the current response; otherwise,
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
>    o  If the received protocol is HTTP/1.0, the "keep-alive" connection
>       option is present, either the recipient is not a proxy or the
>       message is a response, and the recipient wishes to honor the
>       HTTP/1.0 "keep-alive" mechanism, the connection will persist after
>       the current response; otherwise,
>
> Notes
> -----
> This bullet is clearly intended to be there to introduce "A proxy server MUST NOT maintain a persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 client" requirement later in the text; however, as it's worded, it technically also prohibits HTTP/1.1-proxies to maintain a persistent connection with an HTTP/1.0 *server*.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7230 (draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-26)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing
> Publication Date    : June 2014
> Author(s)           : R. Fielding, Ed., J. Reschke, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

Received on Tuesday, 23 December 2014 15:40:04 UTC