[Errata Rejected] RFC9218 (7556)

The following errata report has been rejected for RFC9218,
"Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP".

--------------------------------------
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid7556

--------------------------------------
Status: Rejected
Type: Technical

Reported by: Mo Zanaty <mzanaty@cisco.com>
Date Reported: 2023-06-29
Rejected by: Murray Kucherawy (IESG)

Section: 4.1

Original Text
-------------
The urgency (u) parameter value is Integer (see Section 3.3.1 of
[STRUCTURED-FIELDS]), between 0 and 7 inclusive, in descending order
of priority.

Corrected Text
--------------
The urgency (u) parameter value is Integer (see Section 3.3.1 of
[STRUCTURED-FIELDS]), between 0 and 7 inclusive, in ASCENDING order
of priority.

Notes
-----
The very next paragraph indicates ASCENDING order of priority:
"The smaller the value, the higher the precedence."
Minor nit: It is confusing and unnecessary to use "precedence" and "urgency" as aliases for "priority". Readers can be misled to think these are intended to be distinct properties rather than aliases.

[AD response] The operative phrase to me is "between 0 and 7 inclusive, in descending order of priority".  I read that as a set of ordered values from 0 to 7 where the first value has the highest priority, the second value is down a notch, etc., hence, descending.  The later phrase "The smaller the value, the higher the precedence" affirms this interpretation.
 --VERIFIER NOTES-- 
   

--------------------------------------
RFC9218 (draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-12)
--------------------------------------
Title               : Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP
Publication Date    : June 2022
Author(s)           : K. Oku, L. Pardue
Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
Source              : HTTP
Area                : Applications and Real-Time
Stream              : IETF
Verifying Party     : IESG

Received on Monday, 17 July 2023 22:30:00 UTC