Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Define initial PRIORITY frame and remove exclusive dependencies (#2075)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

kazuho commented on this pull request.



> @@ -552,10 +553,11 @@ the interpretation of the associated Element ID fields.
 Note that the root of the tree cannot be referenced using a Stream ID of 0, as
 in {{!RFC7540}}; QUIC stream 0 carries a valid HTTP request.  The root of the
 tree cannot be reprioritized. A PRIORITY frame sent on a request stream that
-prioritizes any other stream MUST be treated as a stream error of type
-HTTP_MALFORMED_FRAME.  Likewise, a PRIORITY frame sent on a control stream that
-prioritizes the current stream MUST be treated as a connection error of type
-HTTP_MALFORMED_FRAME.
+prioritizes any other stream or expresses a dependency on a request with a

Ah. Thank you for the clarification. I missed that.

My preference goes to stating that `Prioritized Element Type` MUST be `11` when the frame is sent on a request stream and that it MUST NOT be `11` when the frame is sent on a control stream.

This is because I prefer to avoid having multiple representation that means the same; under the current provision, it seems that PEID could be encoded in two ways for a PRIORITY frame sent on a request stream; either set Prioritized Element Type to `11` or set it to `00` and set Prioritized Element ID to the ID of the stream. I fear that we might see interoperability issues in the wild if _most_ of the clients use the `11` form but some used the `00` form.

-- 
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/2075#discussion_r239284823