Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4925)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 07 February 2017 04:10 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 052D5129968 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:10:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.921 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 pdBy4xgGdWVJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:10:56 -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 3A470129960 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 20:10:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cax4i-0007Es-IL for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 04:08:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 04:08:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cax4i-0007Es-IL@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cax4e-0007Da-Qz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 04:08:12 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1cax4S-0004A8-PI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 04:08:07 +0000
Received: from [192.168.3.104] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D31122E259; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:07:33 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20170207034920.A495EB81178@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:07:29 +1100
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6BBC3056-487E-47D4-9FCE-739E6BB65FF4@mnot.net>
References: <20170207034920.A495EB81178@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.349, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cax4S-0004A8-PI 197191f480a5165f1eea5aadc15076c8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4925)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/6BBC3056-487E-47D4-9FCE-739E6BB65FF4@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33457
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>

Folks, please have a look at this and confirm that this is the intent.

Martin, I'm assuming the status we want is HOLD FOR DOCUMENT UPDATE?

Thanks,


> On 7 Feb 2017, at 2:49 pm, 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=4925
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: GLOBAL
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> 
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> 
> 
> Notes
> -----
> It's unclear from the text whether PRIORITY frames affect stream states (as shown in the state machine in Section 5.1).  The original intent was that prioritization of streams was independent of the mechanics of opening and closing streams, but this was not consistently captured.
> 
> Two small additions to the document would help considerably.
> 
> In Section 5.3 (Stream Priority) add 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 any stream (Section 5.1), only the priority of streams is altered.
> 
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party  
> can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. 
> 
> --------------------------------------
> RFC7540 (draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)
> Publication Date    : May 2015
> Author(s)           : M. Belshe, R. Peon, M. Thomson, Ed.
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Hypertext Transfer Protocol Bis APP
> Area                : Applications
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/