W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC7540 (4871)

From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:41:07 +0000
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, fenix@google.com, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, ben@nostrum.com, alissa@cooperw.in, aamelnikov@fastmail.fm, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1102C272-E8D6-40D3-9D39-7D4801ABD286@lukasa.co.uk>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>

> On 30 Nov 2016, at 04:33, 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

Well, this tripped me up: the Python priority implementation gets this wrong.

Let me ask a follow-on question that I have not been able to find an answer for in RFC 7540. If we continue the example from the erratum (streams A, B, C, D, A and B have stream 0 as parent, C and D depend on A), it’s now clear to me that if stream A is blocked then stream B gets all the resources. What happens if both stream A and B are blocked? Should my server endeavour to serve dependent streams in that case? I *think* the answer is yes because of the logic around having grouping nodes formed from idle streams, but I’m not 100% sure and would like clarification.

Cory
Received on Wednesday, 30 November 2016 08:41:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 November 2016 08:41:47 UTC