Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540

laike9m <> Fri, 20 January 2017 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E67F129451 for <>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:11:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.699 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 8-F0wwqnH-ap for <>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:11:54 -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 0B0701293E8 for <>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:11:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cUZsY-0006sT-0B for; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:09:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:09:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cUZsV-0006rZ-7B for; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:09:19 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cUZsN-00046N-HS for; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:09:13 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id 203so20734021ith.0 for <>; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:08:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=VnFwItkpGNV/I+bgYMtCA3KodKlXAQmTkMY1wnKCrME=; b=eDCORt1ApLliG0q2PaR0tGii/HECmqTJQJLcTP6RCyS1WsAbJWQj3nCTQg6Mmbj6cv 9nm9ahF+XXkufDexIc3bnzqprA6vPmiYB1NNxd9mA8Gf+Ur/9dDooKgI26SMVnftpOLO bBRpYykfWOYJln5yZHhhU3VrkIOZoM4dIrbPX8X+5RcPTyXiZdMSbRPf0736mpwtAiI4 pJai1ecT8L+17Kx4799l/hQsE8z6S/mB1JG/vKCeBjaGvFvYXknl7uBl0o8u+REz+QKE ZslEqFWhzgQVh6Gl/9cj9LTm+H5FgrXdIhE7OK2F1y7bOoYIA/Q6HcQiiEmaYeuBEbcx IK2w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=VnFwItkpGNV/I+bgYMtCA3KodKlXAQmTkMY1wnKCrME=; b=oRfFrQTkoR06cFOxAzkfmGchav1jfKc/Rs/P1kaVUCa+caRkugzKq4fVvGlOh/ugIn dXLgSvDq5HheRfLvdAfsz4wBhuTSqcg9xDeu/iAB4PBh0y/ecuxtLN9kPhuD2se/aaVh M90H2gt8XarZ6UsbD2CiBaiI5xtxMUrLg7PocyDTFQFYlO3G2TSW9XCe/7Qm4RfKkUJD CUMhq+rWS0hwC82zlHOFEbOmBrJa77xFYCPGliXOScGUaY7XimPfbg+hMGmXfx4id63O noMWE7aSHlHrcRdG8Rcu2kh/Op6qbZ+EAfilxTo43PqM7SoGQ6YsqUxYV5GYouHIe36Q OBXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXL/yLDh/WLNA8xYdR9tM8t4q0YIC2nvSPiJtlN24PX6VaaeH6Fy5W495U9ENoC+HEpJwzE80CSXOavffA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id y30mr3512575ita.119.1484921325531; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:08:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 20 Jan 2017 06:08:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: laike9m <>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 22:08:45 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Martin Thomson <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1491420b5d10546873072"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.500, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cUZsN-00046N-HS d91558f3c94211660792fbb7aa5c4671
Subject: Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33345
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Wouldn't it be better to explicitly state that "sending PRIORITY frame
doesn't close unused streams"?

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Martin Thomson <>

> 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.