RFC Errata


Errata Search
 
Source of RFC  
Summary Table Full Records

Found 2 records.

Status: Verified (1)

RFC 9114, "HTTP/3", June 2022

Source of RFC: quic (tsv)

Errata ID: 7014
Status: Verified
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: David Schinazi
Date Reported: 2022-07-06
Verifier Name: Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Date Verified: 2022-09-27

Section 4.3.1 says: 

   ":path":  Contains the path and query parts of the target URI (the
      "path-absolute" production and optionally a ? character (ASCII
      0x3f) followed by the "query" production; see Sections 3.3 and 3.4
      of [URI].

It should say:

   ":path":  Contains the path and query parts of the target URI (the
      "absolute-path" production and optionally a ? character (ASCII
      0x3f) followed by the "query" production; see Section 4.1 of
      [HTTP] and Section 3.4 of [URI].

Notes:

There is a conflict between RFC 9114 and RFCs 9110,9112,9113. RFC 9114 disallows paths that start with "//" whereas the others allow them. Research seems to indicate that this was not intentional. More details on the mailing list discussion: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2022JulSep/0014.html

Status: Reported (1)

RFC 9114, "HTTP/3", June 2022

Source of RFC: quic (tsv)

Errata ID: 7238
Status: Reported
Type: Technical
Publication Format(s) : TEXT, PDF, HTML
Reported By: Jaikiran Pai
Date Reported: 2022-11-04

Section 4.2.2 says: 

Because this limit is applied separately by each implementation that
processes the message, messages below this limit are not guaranteed
to be accepted.

It should say:

Because this limit is applied separately by each implementation that
processes the message, messages above this limit are not guaranteed
to be accepted.

Notes:

The section 4.2.2 specifies header size constraints and notes that implementations can send a SETTINGS frame with a SETTINGS_MAX_FIELD_SECTION_SIZE identifier to set a limit on the maximum size of the message header. Since this a maximum size, the sentence that states that intermediaries aren't guaranteed to accept a message below this limit seems odd and I think it should instead say "above this limit".

Report New Errata



Advanced Search