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.