Original text:
transmission of software update files that would have the background urgency being associated.  However, in the worst case, the asymmetry between the precedence declared by multiple clients might cause <del> responses going to one end client to be delayed totally after those </del>  going to another. <del> In order to mitigate this fairness problem, when a server responds to a request that is known to have come through an intermediary, the server SHOULD prioritize the response as if it was assigned the priority of "u=1, i" (i.e. round-robin) regardless of the value of the Priority header field being transmitted, unless the server knows the intermediary is not coalescing requests from multiple clients. </del>  A server can determine if a request came from an intermediary through configuration, or by consulting if that request contains one of the

Reviewer comments:
cc NAME since it closes your issue.
I believe this is now good to go, please approve or speak up if you disagree.
In there is a rather firm recommendation to erase priorities at servers that are served by coalescing intermediaries: This seems wrong to me. The Priority header field provides information about what the User Agent thinks of priority. This might be adjusted by intermediaries on the path, and it might not be globally consistent, but that does not mean the information should be discarded. Instead, I would prefer that we say that when an intermediary coalesces requests from multiple clients, servers need to be aware of that and account for that in their processing. The remainder of this text is fine in the sense that it identifies information the server can use to more fairly allocate resources to different requests, but - again - this is just information the server uses when making prioritization decisions. The model we operate on should not assume be that Priority is an instruction to the server, but that it provides the server (or intermediary) clues about how it might decide to allocate resources.
No one responded to this for a while, sorry. The text is mostly untouched but I did change the example to just . My read of this today, I'm concerned that the requirement is a bit specific. It's not clear if a server applying this would also discard any additional priority parameters. I don't know if NAME original point was along those lines or not, but I'll try to make a PR to address what I think needs fixing

Revised text:
transmission of software update files that would have the background urgency being associated.  However, in the worst case, the asymmetry between the precedence declared by multiple clients might cause  <ins> responses going to one user agent to be delayed totally after those </ins> going to another.  <ins> In order to mitigate this fairness problem, a server could use knowledge about the intermediary as another signal in its prioritization decisions.  For instance, if a server knows the intermediary is coalescing requests, then it could serve the responses in round-robin manner.  This can work if the constrained resource is network capacity between the intermediary and the user agent, as the intermediary buffers responses and forwards the chunks based on the prioritization scheme it implements. </ins> A server can determine if a request came from an intermediary through configuration, or by consulting if that request contains one of the