IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> Wed, 30 November 2016 08:46 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 24C6D1295D8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:46:38 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lukasa-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 qPZEuwPkHQ5S for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:46:35 -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 33A7B1295E1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cC0Se-0006oD-2c for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:41:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:41:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cC0Se-0006oD-2c@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 <cory@lukasa.co.uk>) id 1cC0SX-0006m6-Ot for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:41:45 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f67.google.com ([74.125.82.67]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <cory@lukasa.co.uk>) id 1cC0SP-0007EK-Ko for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:41:40 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f67.google.com with SMTP id u144so28149279wmu.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:41:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lukasa-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Sdm+bEeostuQuo0rwzKyLnuDF3WWM2o4pmVm3jtflPA=; b=OYQkoZZh3hKTgOtpfQ0waw53vVrV0nSscgyr8w4HpDcQz6iXDIPhXs7091ABOn7eT4 0ZbSYby0O/pEffgql09FQ8Dz+XHNUhWPWM/Ku4dWVtmiFugq/s0jGjdVVvWmJbLnDt5T Am7QGzk21KlVduqshvQCgQm6f6AfBlnzLc1KNg8t7SxtT0CGlCpG4wu0Uc9LCIoCIe/7 4tsJZ+etp+jxlrpYxsawCcLPjfQGEUaXNiBVOYHIloVFU7vaNmR9oPmN++I7bGGGY7dB wA+hKyWPPELgckAS2rd/RugwILVMH9ioflSRsta7AvuO7Xt2uuEyFoKwpnCGLzpKKp7s VIGA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Sdm+bEeostuQuo0rwzKyLnuDF3WWM2o4pmVm3jtflPA=; b=c54HqqJlHeMg50WBEtn5eKSdv0CJbyB4BkV/KkgPLHC8gAIKMqyspWmzTCll62Joex 5vHEUL8c/YGMYasXElO0uCAmo5lGKa/CwEnQl9kTOzX8GkBKYl/GrTrbvnfI2Op5O5AQ R/w9FIZ8DEKvbI3QqM/T8s33OAeZGrWpWsNG8Y1qXVGv3jrTdTgE9kvTFUCtKhVouLCJ e6QpkRe3MNN8yDPl6LPIVphB6nV+ZBOh3+M4jHj/3qQJAfEgPmsBXrbpeMkRGffhg/IN AlzEMjNx3NImowWEntv4W4pu7r1XOLv5ltSS0odP/Q1Ny+92k/sgor4la8DBh5NRQRJ1 OkMA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC000W0Lt7TVTTfgZJUWLyD1JIg/mhKoQ5u0pMdPWHMZkwXOrUdBUQZKsXl5ZpHcxQQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.0.210 with SMTP id 201mr26272004wma.49.1480495270469; Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:41:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (72.6.208.46.dyn.plus.net. [46.208.6.72]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q7sm71846292wjh.9.2016.11.30.00.41.08 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Nov 2016 00:41:09 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3257\))
From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <20161130043354.C786DB81319@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:41:07 +0000
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, fenix@google.com, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1102C272-E8D6-40D3-9D39-7D4801ABD286@lukasa.co.uk>
References: <20161130043354.C786DB81319@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3257)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.67; envelope-from=cory@lukasa.co.uk; helo=mail-wm0-f67.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.343, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cC0SP-0007EK-Ko 75754011bbabcae56c0cc41ac823a127
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/1102C272-E8D6-40D3-9D39-7D4801ABD286@lukasa.co.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33034
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>

> On 30 Nov 2016, at 04:33, RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> 
> 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

Well, this tripped me up: the Python priority implementation gets this wrong.

Let me ask a follow-on question that I have not been able to find an answer for in RFC 7540. If we continue the example from the erratum (streams A, B, C, D, A and B have stream 0 as parent, C and D depend on A), it’s now clear to me that if stream A is blocked then stream B gets all the resources. What happens if both stream A and B are blocked? Should my server endeavour to serve dependent streams in that case? I *think* the answer is yes because of the logic around having grouping nodes formed from idle streams, but I’m not 100% sure and would like clarification.

Cory

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email