Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 23 January 2017 23:37 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 8BE51129416
for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:37:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.72
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.72 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=-3.199, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001,
SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.com
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 wnBEu5MHWNIU
for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:37:00 -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 64CB2129409
for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>;
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:37:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80)
(envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>)
id 1cVo7E-0001F9-Rr
for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:33:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:33:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cVo7E-0001F9-Rr@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 <martin.thomson@gmail.com>)
id 1cVo79-0001Dr-Uu
for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:33:31 +0000
Received: from mail-qt0-f175.google.com ([209.85.216.175])
by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128)
(Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>)
id 1cVo74-0005UA-89
for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 23:33:26 +0000
Received: by mail-qt0-f175.google.com with SMTP id v23so152420016qtb.0
for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:33:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
:cc; bh=h1+8RjJHtGVZiSnGnzrtCft14WOyZZaT22709Q/NyOs=;
b=EoQlooIuDEmkptu45HPS63ncBpxqdTM29MMxWMa7uSWbHvXHnD049pdMT7W4hsIwwS
eKQywOMm0IEL1uSCsHxKQ2UdLCBqBVwJnqTfVfmJdL7q8/KTU9RXrxzjxeXg5c8SjcJO
C3zLlq3jZVb2R6Cp2seJLU4coTS9FYhAmc7jrhHlGmpLksS4/zZZQGn2KwPvb5mTomwN
4QLtT//iNZ6lDlpfnSdUrVI1vObfcqRLTizdoG8Si9VGsT/Lsx1XkmhlvSG+Uz3DCztl
C6rLIjXdeZe46pV8NMb61uNDsOhZ8ZbMO+AxC57KTiyqMSaFcvoiydITXOr+F2/HWQlX
aG6w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to:cc;
bh=h1+8RjJHtGVZiSnGnzrtCft14WOyZZaT22709Q/NyOs=;
b=lIYZjx0Civp7wodPL+0ds974KZgYmGtsVsyCDBCjAdZV3JZgZg3YI/6ibqP8cXPrQh
kwrHKMpO0Ad3grv2NQ1RNsGsbx12nOjfO2bGmYhkz7Ao/R0m293NRZ29yZi/0ZXq9jUZ
ZZMAZmUkKVlaFu6FqpFZGm5BKrbW5+QgkyUF8xUBU6duNndaidbgevWy/+z19jzrhHU1
iuug0w+EU8XBke3KdjvQuVZCNNrCZyQ/2iUsjvHu9Qa5Brc4saw3eG+RcolXDzmRPiie
NcmZtJrqxLh2PX+bM+c6EPAPSOwfJBi1EID/wlEbYcBQ0H0wB3ZHla5Ci5Kq8AwLQQ3P
bL3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIkVDXI08kKgqmvEnbZJz4f+g5Qwqun0EVZLd3CuEauRH2qwMnHL7fyutbtNreRP96pH1qU8ADKo9Rf90TljkA==
X-Received: by 10.55.27.65 with SMTP id b62mr28637341qkb.202.1485214379900;
Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:32:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.19.112 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:32:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAFn2buDd_zomeD6GehWN6r=0wey1aEQfJcfjAjEPjr0S390xrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnV4FG01J5CwdjG_gnCWvoyaT80ZBd3R41TopuWuKEAm5A@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFn2buDd_zomeD6GehWN6r=0wey1aEQfJcfjAjEPjr0S390xrA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:32:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVPiVx608jCk=WyPWq-PDqKJ-kFLQf_3WGZur14pUnnog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.175;
envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt0-f175.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.120, 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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01,
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: mimas.w3.org 1cVo74-0005UA-89 3cfeb60e333a3991fd31912ad28f1037
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVPiVx608jCk=WyPWq-PDqKJ-kFLQf_3WGZur14pUnnog@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33358
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>
On 21 January 2017 at 02:15, Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com> wrote: > The bit I think needs clarification is that a PRIORITY frame doesn't impact > state of ANY stream (if this is the intention of the RFC). The ambiguity > comes from the language "first use of a new stream identifier" in section > 5.1.1 (see below). Is it possible to directly resolve this issue? Updating > other sections is great, but this creates an implicit dependency between > different sections which leaves room for error. How about: Sending or receiving a PRIORITY frame does not affect the state of any stream (Section 5.1), only the priority of the identified stream is altered. 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.
- Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540 Martin Thomson
- Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC … Cory Benfield
- Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC … laike9m
- Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC … Scott Mitchell
- Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC … Martin Thomson
- Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC … Patrick McManus
- Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC … Scott Mitchell
- Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC … Martin Thomson