Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Fri, 09 December 2016 03:37 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 9D122129622 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:37:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 YJjUU2dbAf6y for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:37:26 -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 AB0F2129529 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 19:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1cFByi-0002tZ-OO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 03:36:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 03:36:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1cFByi-0002tZ-OO@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 1cFByb-0002rX-UE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 03:36:01 +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 1cFByV-0004hp-2c for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 03:35:56 +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 2AE3A22E257; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:35:26 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.1 \(3251\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <20161130043354.C786DB81319@rfc-editor.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:35:24 +1100
Cc: mike@belshe.com, fenix@google.com, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, pmcmanus@mozilla.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <8B6E1946-3761-4794-9FF7-148A94C6B4C2@mnot.net>
References: <20161130043354.C786DB81319@rfc-editor.org>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3251)
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=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.659, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1cFByV-0004hp-2c d91f63d95bc97ab7dfa9983e840963be
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/8B6E1946-3761-4794-9FF7-148A94C6B4C2@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/33142
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>

RFC Editor, this errata is REJECTED.

Cheers,


> On 30 Nov. 2016, at 3:33 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=4871
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> 
> Section: 5.3.4
> 
> Original Text
> -------------
> For example, assume streams A and B share a parent, and streams C
> and D both depend on stream A. Prior to the removal of stream A,
> if streams A and D are unable to proceed, then stream C receives
> all the resources dedicated to stream A. If stream A is removed
> from the tree, the weight of stream A is divided between streams
> C and D. If stream D is still unable to proceed, this results in
> stream C receiving a reduced proportion of resources. For equal
> starting weights, C receives one third, rather than one half, of
> available resources.
> 
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> For example, assume streams A and B share a parent, and streams C
> and D both depend on stream A. When A is complete, streams C and
> D receive all the resources that would be allocated to stream
> A. If stream D is unable to proceed, stream C shares resources
> with stream B. Assuming equal starting weights on all streams,
> this means that streams B and C receive an equal share.  However,
> if stream A is removed from the tree, the weight of stream A is
> divided between streams C and D. With stream A removed and stream
> D unable to proceed, stream C receives a reduced proportion of
> resources. For equal starting weights, C receives one third,
> rather than one half, of available resources.
> 
> Notes
> -----
> The example was incorrect.  Dependent streams do not receive resources if their parent is blocked; they only receive resources once the parent is complete.
> 
> Note that I didn't correct the common misunderstanding regarding the third here.  That might be further improved by doing the math.  That is:
> 
> Before removal: A=N (C=N, D=N), B=N;
> After removal: B=N, C=N/2, D=N/2;
> Therefore viable streams are B=N and C=N/2 meaning a total pool of 3N/2.  The resource proportion allocated to C is therefore (N/2)/(3N/2)=1/3.
> 
> But that would probably need an entire section for the example, rather than a single paragraph.
> 
> 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/