[Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4925)

RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> Tue, 07 February 2017 03:52 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D117129467 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:52:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.921
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DPbvrbJFmCMc for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A806A1298B5 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:52:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cawn3-0004LQ-G6 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:50:01 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:50:01 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cawn3-0004LQ-G6@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1cawmx-0004JQ-IQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:49:55 +0000
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <wwwrun@rfc-editor.org>) id 1cawmp-0000Ar-Gn for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:49:49 +0000
Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id A495EB81178; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:49:20 -0800 (PST)
To: mike@belshe.com, fenix@google.com, martin.thomson@gmail.com, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, pmcmanus@mozilla.com, mnot@mnot.net
X-PHP-Originating-Script: 30:errata_mail_lib.php
From: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
Cc: martin.thomson@gmail.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Content-Type: text/plain@rfc-editor.org;, charset=UTF-8@rfc-editor.org
Message-Id: <20170207034920.A495EB81178@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:49:20 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=; envelope-from=wwwrun@rfc-editor.org; helo=rfc-editor.org
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=2.061, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1cawmp-0000Ar-Gn 71753b9a8b79d82691ce859074fb4091
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4925)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20170207034920.A495EB81178@rfc-editor.org>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33455
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>

The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7540,
"Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)".

You may review the report below and at:

Type: Editorial
Reported by: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>

Section: GLOBAL

Original Text

Corrected Text

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.

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