RFC Errata


Errata Search

 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Held for Document Update (1)

RFC 7838, "HTTP Alternative Services", April 2016

Source of RFC: httpbis (art)

Errata ID: 6480
Status: Held for Document Update
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Lucas Pardue
Date Reported: 2021-03-12
Held for Document Update by: Francesca Palombini
Date Held: 2021-03-15

Section 2 says:

Formally, an alternative service is identified by the combination of:

   o  An Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) protocol name, as
      per [RFC7301]

It should say:

Formally, an alternative service is identified by the combination of:

   o  An Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) protocol name, as
      per [RFC7301]

Notes:

RFC 7301 seems to formally use the hyphenated version. Most relevant to RFC 7838 is the ALPN ID registry, which RFC 7301 states:

This document establishes a registry for protocol identifiers
entitled "Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs"

Status: Rejected (1)

RFC 7838, "HTTP Alternative Services", April 2016

Source of RFC: httpbis (art)

Errata ID: 6481
Status: Rejected
Type: Editorial
Publication Format(s) : TEXT

Reported By: Lucas Pardue
Date Reported: 2021-03-13
Rejected by: Francesca Palombini
Date Rejected: 2021-03-15

Section 2.4 says:

   Furthermore, if the connection to the alternative service fails or is
   unresponsive, the client MAY fall back to using the origin or another
   alternative service.  Note, however, that this could be the basis of
   a downgrade attack, thus losing any enhanced security properties of
   the alternative service.

It should say:

 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Notes:

Alt-Svc fall back is described in section 2.4 and mentions security properties, so I was expecting to see something about fall back in the security considerations. This might be implicitly covered by Section 9.3 but it could potentially be made more clear.
--VERIFIER NOTES--
General clarifications and request for improvements to the RFC in a possible future update of the document should be proposed using channels other than the errata process, such as the WG mailing list.

Report New Errata