- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 08:32:59 +0900
- To: Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 21 January 2017 at 02:15, Scott Mitchell <scott.k.mitch1@gmail.com> wrote: > The bit I think needs clarification is that a PRIORITY frame doesn't impact > state of ANY stream (if this is the intention of the RFC). The ambiguity > comes from the language "first use of a new stream identifier" in section > 5.1.1 (see below). Is it possible to directly resolve this issue? Updating > other sections is great, but this creates an implicit dependency between > different sections which leaves room for error. How about: Sending or receiving a PRIORITY frame does not affect the state of any stream (Section 5.1), only the priority of the identified stream is altered. I think that the "first use of a new stream identifier" text is still problematic, but I don't know how to deal with that without performing more surgery.
Received on Monday, 23 January 2017 23:33:32 UTC