Hello Lucas,
Thank you for that explanation. I think your explanation is correct.
Your explanation makes it clear to me now what that RFC text meant to
convey. I am not a native English speaker, so I don't know if there's a
need to edit the RFC text to make this clearer.
-Jaikiran (reporter of this errata)
On 04/11/22 3:37 pm, Lucas Pardue wrote:
Hi,
Speaking as an individual, I think the current RFC text is correct.
The problem that is being described is where 1) a client sends a
message smaller than MAX_FIELD_SECTION_SIZE and might expect that to
work but 2) the server is an intermediary that needs to forward the
message onto another server that, for example, has a smaller value
for MAX_FIELD_SECTION_SIZE preventing this.
In other words, even if the client plays by the rules of the first hop
by staying under the limit, there is no guarantee that other hops that
the client is not aware of won't reject the message.
Cheers
Lucas
On Fri, 4 Nov 2022, 09:49 RFC Errata System,
<rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9114,
"HTTP/3".
--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7238
--------------------------------------
Type: Technical
Reported by: Jaikiran Pai <jai.forums2...@gmail.com>
Section: 4.2.2
Original Text
-------------
Because this limit is applied separately by each implementation that
processes the message, messages below this limit are not guaranteed
to be accepted.
Corrected Text
--------------
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".
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.
--------------------------------------
RFC9114 (draft-ietf-quic-http-34)
--------------------------------------
Title : HTTP/3
Publication Date : June 2022
Author(s) : M. Bishop, Ed.
Category : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source : QUIC
Area : Transport
Stream : IETF
Verifying Party : IESG
