Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540

On 21 January 2017 at 02:15, Scott Mitchell <> 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

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