[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Wed, 30 November 2016 04:38 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCE9129541 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:38:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mSccCRryJ7hB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:38:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E84171295BC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:38:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cBwbR-0005Xq-7z for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:34:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:34:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cBwbR-0005Xq-7z@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1cBwbF-0005W7-Kx for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:34:29 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([4.31.198.49]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1cBwb8-0007j6-Qw for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 04:34:24 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id C786DB81319; Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:33:54 -0800 (PST)
To: mike@belshe.com, fenix@google.com, martin.thomson@gmail.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, pmcmanus@mozilla.com, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.thomson@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20161130043354.C786DB81319@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 20:33:54 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=4.31.198.49; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfc-editor.org; helo=rfc-editor.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.010, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.899, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cBwb8-0007j6-Qw e8ee0ac9af9d40c02850a4236ee8cf94
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20161130043354.C786DB81319@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33032
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7540,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7540&eid=4871

--------------------------------------
Type: Editorial
Reported by: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

Section: 5.3.4

Original Text
-------------
For example, assume streams A and B share a parent, and streams C
and D both depend on stream A. Prior to the removal of stream A,
if streams A and D are unable to proceed, then stream C receives
all the resources dedicated to stream A. If stream A is removed
from the tree, the weight of stream A is divided between streams
C and D. If stream D is still unable to proceed, this results in
stream C receiving a reduced proportion of resources. For equal
starting weights, C receives one third, rather than one half, of
available resources.

Corrected Text
--------------
For example, assume streams A and B share a parent, and streams C
and D both depend on stream A. When A is complete, streams C and
D receive all the resources that would be allocated to stream
A. If stream D is unable to proceed, stream C shares resources
with stream B. Assuming equal starting weights on all streams,
this means that streams B and C receive an equal share.  However,
if stream A is removed from the tree, the weight of stream A is
divided between streams C and D. With stream A removed and stream
D unable to proceed, stream C receives a reduced proportion of
resources. For equal starting weights, C receives one third,
rather than one half, of available resources.

Notes
-----
The example was incorrect.  Dependent streams do not receive resources if their parent is blocked; they only receive resources once the parent is complete.

Note that I didn't correct the common misunderstanding regarding the third here.  That might be further improved by doing the math.  That is:

Before removal: A=N (C=N, D=N), B=N;
After removal: B=N, C=N/2, D=N/2;
Therefore viable streams are B=N and C=N/2 meaning a total pool of 3N/2.  The resource proportion allocated to C is therefore (N/2)/(3N/2)=1/3.

But that would probably need an entire section for the example, rather than a single paragraph.

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. 

--------------------------------------
RFC7540 (draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)
Publication Date    : May 2015
Author(s)           : M. Belshe, R. Peon, M. Thomson, Ed.
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
Area                : Applications
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG