Having a more of an explanation (along the lines of that Lucas provided) might be worthwhile.
The only question here is how that might be tracked. I would suggest that we reject this erratum and open an issue on the spec repository. On Fri, Nov 4, 2022, at 10:14, Jaikiran Pai wrote: > 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, <[email protected]> >> 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 <[email protected]> >>> >>> 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
