Re: Proposed text for erratum on PRIORITY in RFC 7540

sgtm

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>
>