Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

[Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]>]

RFC Editor, this errata is REJECTED.

Cheers,


> On 30 Nov. 2016, at 3:33 pm, RFC Errata System <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 
> 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/