Re: handling bad priority parameters

On 23 August 2014 03:52, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21 August 2014 20:30, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:
> > 1. What's the appropriate reaction if a HEADERS or PRIORITY frame
> includes
> > an invalid stream dependency? i.e. too large, odd when it should be even,
> > etc? I can see a case for allowing future IDs into the tree, completely
> > ignoring bad priority data, or for throwing a stream error. Which should
> it
> > be?
>
> My intent, which I failed to capture, was to say that if you don't
> have priority state for the parent stream, the dependent stream
> instead is given default priority (that means stream 0, weight 16).
>
>
Understood. I guess it doesn't hurt anyone too much if the tree gets
mangled because of a desync.



> > 2. What do we do if we receive a trailing HEADERS frame that contains
> > priority info?
>
> I think that we should fix that too.
>
>
> http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/