IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Wed, 25 January 2017 00:35 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 039931295D4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:35:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sendgrid.me
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 roEDyQf_E4Fc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:35:46 -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 344251295DC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cWBVj-0001lh-2e for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:32:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:32:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cWBVj-0001lh-2e@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1cWBVe-0001jo-DJ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:32:22 +0000
Received: from o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net ([167.89.55.65]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net>) id 1cWBVY-0002cH-6m for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:32:17 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sendgrid.me; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=smtpapi; bh=4l/flGWxdi4CjKTpvz9SJLx4mFE=; b=pwXlf6qO+oO5liXYjF A7L1U6K9MNfbsspf20MGcjgtA60SnzYRTqerGDO71643rLCxpZH9ZXxFbRJh44nW 1oMyKfld3qkgEU/oza55I7Oct3tIOKYUbNpYUHBOJCVEFp5+dTbDzsgZS3ozNl9d 5UBpwMvsz0FU3hMSWDAi5RIsE=
Received: by filter0533p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter0533p1mdw1-3453-5887F1E8-9 2017-01-25 00:31:36.110671617 +0000 UTC
Received: from mail-qt0-f174.google.com (mail-qt0-f174.google.com [209.85.216.174]) by ismtpd0001p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id SSq2OrL9RBmFzqhnTDckaw for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:31:36.024 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qt0-f174.google.com with SMTP id l7so2993657qtd.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:31:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXIWKC1f7Q66lt27Ww7MKAb4By61xDxDmDTKFMhOXbszhoFLr9D1r8cJ5kLiZikX8ZoStwvHR+xINFr3Rg==
X-Received: by 10.200.52.105 with SMTP id v38mr31323184qtb.227.1485304295279; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:31:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.162.65 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:31:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVPiVx608jCk=WyPWq-PDqKJ-kFLQf_3WGZur14pUnnog@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnV4FG01J5CwdjG_gnCWvoyaT80ZBd3R41TopuWuKEAm5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAFn2buDd_zomeD6GehWN6r=0wey1aEQfJcfjAjEPjr0S390xrA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVPiVx608jCk=WyPWq-PDqKJ-kFLQf_3WGZur14pUnnog@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 09:31:34 +0900
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpEhEv-91kpOSsX24cNR3CXc9i34xWspAa6uO3BrMO4rA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpEhEv-91kpOSsX24cNR3CXc9i34xWspAa6uO3BrMO4rA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11412deae789f10546e05ad7"
X-SG-EID: YLWet4rakcOTMHWvPPwWbcsiUJbN1FCn0PHYd/Uujh6ZcrwuJjM4e4N3gAvId1x82hY3BpSWg+nhCJ su47FZCe7GOQep8+8tsY/u6UUmBQ/pP94qfRRA+R475zOrlDdzx1B3Qs0schnGhoqewmZKa9m0GTiK /vEkHb6/LZF+rLTFR1V1XRI82aPgjfBlQnTl/jrcWCD9rCrGCnV5+JtF9o0EmkgD53Z75v1OYFio+l g=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=167.89.55.65; envelope-from=bounces+1568871-208f-ietf-http-wg=w3.org@sendgrid.net; helo=o1.7nn.fshared.sendgrid.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.273, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.156, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cWBVY-0002cH-6m a34d1e98d8f6dd771cd8878abd0193ac
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNpEhEv-91kpOSsX24cNR3CXc9i34xWspAa6uO3BrMO4rA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33371
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>

sgtm

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 21 January 2017 at 02:15, Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The bit I think needs clarification is that a PRIORITY frame doesn't
> impact
> > state of ANY stream (if this is the intention of the RFC). The ambiguity
> > comes from the language "first use of a new stream identifier" in section
> > 5.1.1 (see below). Is it possible to directly resolve this issue?
> Updating
> > other sections is great, but this creates an implicit dependency between
> > different sections which leaves room for error.
>
> How about:
>
> Sending or receiving a PRIORITY frame does not affect the state of any
> stream (Section 5.1), only the priority of the identified stream is
> altered.
>
> I think that the "first use of a new stream identifier" text is still
> problematic, but I don't know how to deal with that without performing
> more surgery.
>
>

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status