Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540

Martin Thomson <> Fri, 20 January 2017 04:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4C05126BF7 for <>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:02:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nwYklHPK0312 for <>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:02:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D4D126579 for <>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 20:02:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cUQND-0005O3-0e for; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 04:00:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 04:00:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cUQN9-0004bY-82 for; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 04:00:19 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cUQN3-0007cf-EV for; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 04:00:14 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id l19so66349121ywc.2 for <>; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:59:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=29x+tHifSgH9yLNHubS6qYjpGcU59X71oTQn7YdOUhs=; b=FIoqP2rLHQu//sjRolyfeshVzxUgNXZvYtWqk16FcQxh7goRhwgQ5cOP4LA2+0OOMV FQ9RFHbLmt7PWzFkc8EXBPWKuMEjgbaX70HuYI37vozm3CIqS82w+qHvxlTYkMn2tHet R6fYdqCe6OUz8IWjJFZEHrRZB1cDNIVlY7aw7RmCAc4ADg/4G1MNv+02xsBEnDDQaYN0 o+qPw7nupfZJXn9n1ks2WOCJ0Pspahfg4FEK/Lv5+7bE20vdUIy5i+CDML2c0qfnZeTQ Q7YhAUGRVHRCsevbkuqqbTj/4VxdTTxsrUDXSs7BUXIN3/s/PlzyUf7VzwqB3PpadzZp c0Vw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=29x+tHifSgH9yLNHubS6qYjpGcU59X71oTQn7YdOUhs=; b=EZpI97JClR6ixXS+q8h97l4575noAou0GopxJuO0Crm1aboD6o1rJ0WQC7bp5Z6oZz oHTDn8LswNuv2QrzON7Sn/WK4zw5TiRTfgP5fQOP/t41/eNfdJDX3Sm0B9sIeLzTLOxO nZ+O2T8LsjEd1w2YL5MCanmMYvmSAW2u0FVRgO67Tl6Sxx9u1b4NVDOD0gCHWjD969AN cpjQ2FXZQszLQXDXjinQe6e/jHWm87bgq6pSk8ZBHUq+DIu01fP8QDerUF2LWEWIfQBP 6oqSTKeC+qY4+MA6yxg2kqg68IOZEEEQszNBX/JZOpSKBbp+vT5JAEU2M94JparfDCRI 7CsQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXLGp1UaU9eOXOYDXiqk+EfTVYpFzDyl+DydmbavHGIfxf1xV3e7xihF2mlK8SJPhZZQtIMyc58YYrDIag==
X-Received: by with SMTP id n82mr10924706qke.316.1484884787561; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:59:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2017 19:59:47 -0800 (PST)
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:59:47 +1300
Message-ID: <>
To: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.230, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cUQN3-0007cf-EV 9e07c56c5ca5847cccae273bf67cdb6d
Subject: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33341
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

I figure that I might try to nut this out here before opening an
erratum.  It's not clear from the thread that we all understand this.

I think that suggesting two additions is the right thing here.  It's
an erratum, so we don't have to do a proper edit, we can leave that
for some future revision of the spec to get precisely right.

In Section 5.3 (Stream Priority) a new paragraph:

> The information that an endpoint maintains for stream priority is separate from other state. Importantly, this includes stream states (Section 5.1).  A stream in any state can have its priority changed with a PRIORITY frame. The state of a stream is not changed as a result of changing its priority.  The number of streams for which state is remembered is at the discretion of an endpoint, see Section 5.3.4 for details.

In Section 6.4 (PRIORITY) a new sentence at the end of the first paragraph:

> Sending or receiving a PRIORITY frame does not affect the state of the identified stream (Section 5.1), only its priority is altered.

I think that we only really need one piece of clarification (the
second would be enough), but it doesn't hurt to make it clear in both
places that one might go to learn this.