Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

Mo,

You seem to be arguing that the specification doesn't match your mental model of how it should work. That's not an erratum

RFC Editor, I believe this should be REJECTed.

Cheers,


> On 30 Jun 2023, at 9:41 am, Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> IP TOS is descending order of priority, where the highest value (7) is the highest priority. 
> 
> Urgency is ascending order of priority, where the lowest value (0) is the highest priority. Its definition as an integer between 0 and 7 inclusive doesn’t alter the meaning of descending / ascending. So I don’t see how the current text can be considered correct. 
> 
> Mo
> 
> 
> From: Lucas Pardue <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2023 6:49:27 PM
> To: RFC Errata System <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>; Murray Kucherawy <[e-mail]>; Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>; Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>; Tommy Pauly <[e-mail]>; Mo Zanaty (mzanaty) <[e-mail]>; HTTP Working Group <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC9218 (7556)   
> 
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2023, 23:38 RFC Errata System, <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/