Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] allow PRIORITY frames referring to placeholders exceeding `SETTING_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS` (#2761)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

kazuho commented on this pull request.



> @@ -1202,9 +1202,17 @@ The following situations are examples of invalid PRIORITY frames:
 A PRIORITY frame with Empty bits not set to zero MAY be treated as a connection
 error of type HTTP_MALFORMED_FRAME.
 
-A PRIORITY frame that references a non-existent Push ID, a Placeholder ID
-greater than the server's limit, or a Stream ID the client is not yet permitted
-to open MUST be treated as a connection error of type HTTP_LIMIT_EXCEEDED.
+A PRIORITY frame that references a non-existent Push ID, or a Stream ID the
+client is not yet permitted to open MUST be treated as a connection error of
+type HTTP_LIMIT_EXCEEDED.
+
+A PRIORITY frame MAY reference a Placeholder ID that is equal to or greater than
+the server's advertised value of the `SETTINGS_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS` settings.  When
+receiving a PRIORITY frame with its prioritized element set to such a
+placeholder, the server SHOULD discard the frame without making any change to
+the priority tree.  When receiving a PRIORITY frame with its element dependency
+set to such a placeholder, the server SHOULD update the priority tree with the
+root of the tree being the dependency instead.

> The implication would be that clients should build the priority tree with higher-priority placeholders having a lower placeholder ID.

This sounds like a good way of thinking. I agree that providing such a guidance is a better than having no guidance at all.

OTOH, That creates a dependency on #2690. @MikeBishop, should we wait for the merger of #2690 before updating the text?

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2761#discussion_r291459107