Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556)

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Thu, 29 June 2023 22:49 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230629223842.6107B7FDE8@rfcpa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230629223842.6107B7FDE8@rfcpa.amsl.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2023 23:49:27 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oY_Mns3MDpHvtT3vgqxoFuzG_reK9iHWuj1XWc2LCckzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Murray Kucherawy <superuser@gmail.com>, Francesca Palombini <francesca.palombini@ericsson.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e055cd05ff4c8373"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2f; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-oo1-xc2f.google.com
Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9oY_Mns3MDpHvtT3vgqxoFuzG_reK9iHWuj1XWc2LCckzg@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, 23:38 RFC Errata System, <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9218,
> "Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7556
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: Mo Zanaty <mzanaty@cisco.com>
>
> Section: 4.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> The urgency (u) parameter value is Integer (see Section 3.3.1 of
> [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]), between 0 and 7 inclusive, in descending order
> of priority.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> The urgency (u) parameter value is Integer (see Section 3.3.1 of
> [STRUCTURED-FIELDS]), between 0 and 7 inclusive, in ASCENDING order
> of priority.
>
> Notes
> -----
> The very next paragraph indicates ASCENDING order of priority:
> "The smaller the value, the higher the precedence."
> Minor nit: It is confusing and unnecessary to use "precedence" and
> "urgency" as aliases for "priority". Readers can be misled to think these
> are intended to be distinct properties rather than aliases.
>
> 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.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC9218 (draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-12)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP
> Publication Date    : June 2022
> Author(s)           : K. Oku, L. Pardue
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : HTTP
> Area                : Applications and Real-Time
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

The first value in the urgency range, 0, is the thing that is most urgent.
The last value, 7, is least. So as the number increments the priority
decreases. The text is therefor accurate when it states the range
represents a descending priority when moving from start to end of the range.

>

[Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556) RFC Errata System
Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556) Lucas Pardue
Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556) Mark Nottingham
Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556) Lucas Pardue