Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540

Martin Thomson <> Tue, 07 February 2017 03:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E58E1298C4 for <>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:59:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.522 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 TMrTiT9qArVl for <>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:59:38 -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 0D24B129465 for <>; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:59:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cawuP-0008P8-Km for; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:57:37 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:57:37 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <>) id 1cawuM-0008ON-2y for; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:57:34 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1cawuG-0000Pc-6e for; Tue, 07 Feb 2017 03:57:28 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id 11so76505885qkl.3 for <>; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:57:07 -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=adTuiehdtwqdAXRPmNRZ9VwL0ZyL/lPjA5AsLFZoswg=; b=Rl86PIg8g/sduKR/TM2Xjm0a774Rr45to3IZ8fFAPDmkEUnyzXIMoFzb7XpGZMxNDf 8c2pJ/1I7XNGj1ThYW3gqekDg5b56gSz44CIvuLehYBNHYkV/50IT55XhHM/RfrvaDrp UH0tmaMuq8eCbdZ/sXThyMgrc/xXZGGj8xXlSIBdno5HaDZ6WQ4uBNZh9DzwCiQ31XZ7 8i6qdJsmTPZEQo42shxzGGcoZFSb1ZDur61tQzii/hC/+qy18+v7B3bH+0aVkS0jrhqJ HUKghLax2MvWwgXWoplLznsEcsrtsU8INLlNz7DpzBVQXDDGZVL8wRAeMeHx89NT3cR8 1+Fg==
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=adTuiehdtwqdAXRPmNRZ9VwL0ZyL/lPjA5AsLFZoswg=; b=l4Twpl1IJhGPpBT3Tc+HnDFTnWvHVBzN3wrnqxiJ/op7cqvL3Oez8OOcnkxSh1jldi EmiSWhL/95h3vt1f89gnjdvRxzBMQQZJwT7Wfx98PbLvFHYna3NalfXir1JSDZRzDuci MSRERMlhi65SVUcAFgIiMu7CYyi2rdYnXhOY6m8lSpc2Ym9stlI+oqEtRRIExkTOu9xX 54mXimoCq5QdD3Tpk/LrcnyTDc25YW+eCGSCris85MTildq2sPb5LI0L23SLLOq0JjHG 1PcpKU2TzPgF+N9lYeZ9vwuNCE4MkTyzefBBMhm3SyjXbHL/qZkbKS4Dc1BTgHFKCCur L8fA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kN+CXaZS6RjtQuzoQ5YqU0T9KissnbuLR6M2+TUGj1akNtAUqH+IvBEK9J2Ds5vFjAdZGA5qJ5m8tu6A==
X-Received: by with SMTP id f81mr13530761qkh.5.1486439822166; Mon, 06 Feb 2017 19:57:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 19:57:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
From: Martin Thomson <>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 14:57:01 +1100
Message-ID: <>
To: Scott Mitchell <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.068, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1.887, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1cawuG-0000Pc-6e f168e24b302e1c147aef9a5679002b12
Subject: Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33456
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

On 25 January 2017 at 13:44, Scott Mitchell <> wrote:
> A PRIORITY frame references 2 streams, and if the "exclusive" bit
> is set the priority of other streams may also be altered.

An excellent point.  I hope that I captured it properly.

>> I think that the "first use of a new stream identifier" text is still
>> problematic, but I don't know how to deal with that without performing
>> more surgery.
> I would like to try to flush this out to get more clarify if possible. Based
> upon the previous clarification we know PRIORITY frames are excluded from
> consideration as "new stream identifier" in this context. Does this "new
> stream identifier" include the Promised Stream ID from PUSH_PROMISE frames?

The promised stream ID is use of a stream identifier.  The carve-out
for priority was imperfect, but it was intended as the only exception
to that "first use" rule.

(p.s., I hope that we manage a lot better with this in QUIC.)