[Errata Rejected] RFC9218 (7556)
RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Mon, 17 July 2023 22:30 UTC
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1qLWeY-00BSFN-9G for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 22:30:00 +0000
Received: from [50.223.129.200] (helo=rfcpa.amsl.com) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com>) id 1qLWj8-00DO3M-Cs for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 22:29:59 +0000
Received: by rfcpa.amsl.com (Postfix, from userid 499) id 6FBBF289E8; Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
To: mzanaty@cisco.com, kazuhooku@gmail.com, lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: superuser@gmail.com, iesg@ietf.org, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Message-Id: <20230717222953.6FBBF289E8@rfcpa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 15:29:53 -0700
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=50.223.129.200; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfcpa.amsl.com; helo=rfcpa.amsl.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1qLWj8-00DO3M-Cs 0510daaae271b34fe6ec649a01dec00f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Errata Rejected] RFC9218 (7556)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20230717222953.6FBBF289E8@rfcpa.amsl.com>
The following errata report has been rejected for RFC9218, "Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7556 -------------------------------------- Status: Rejected Type: Technical Reported by: Mo Zanaty <mzanaty@cisco.com> Date Reported: 2023-06-29 Rejected by: Murray Kucherawy (IESG) 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. [AD response] The operative phrase to me is "between 0 and 7 inclusive, in descending order of priority". I read that as a set of ordered values from 0 to 7 where the first value has the highest priority, the second value is down a notch, etc., hence, descending. The later phrase "The smaller the value, the higher the precedence" affirms this interpretation. --VERIFIER NOTES-- -------------------------------------- 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
- [Errata Rejected] RFC9218 (7556) RFC Errata System