W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design Issue: Separate HEADERS and PRIORITY Frames, Eliminate HEADERS+PRIORITY

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:19:38 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbeAwrT15QKn5kL0=w+V0zBgObe_pOzT-NxbwSrZ_RyA+A@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> Thanks for describing these cases now. I had not thought of them.
>
> If everyone's sold on reprioritization, then let's go ahead and do this and
> have the debate about ditching HEADERS+PRIORITY or not. I want to keep it. I
> don't like the idea of sending a PRIORITY frame first. Is sending a PRIORITY
> frame going to trigger stream state allocation at the receiver? What's the
> expectation? And if you don't have a priority for the HEADERS, then you have
> the race that Roberto described.
>

There is no reason to assume that sending a PRIORITY frame first would
trigger stream state allocation at the receiver. At most, it would
reserve the stream ID and store the priority value. The full state
allocation would not occur until the HEADERS frame is received. That
said, I'm not 100% dead set on removing HEADERS+PRIORITY, I would just
like to simplify the protocol where it makes sense to, and even then
only after it's been proven out in implementation. Having separate
HEADERS, HEADERS+PRIORITY and PRIORITY frames is confusing, if we can
do without separating them, we ought to do so.

- James

>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:32 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
>> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I support adding a new additional PRIORITY frame for stream
>>> reprioritization.
>>
>>
>> me too. Specifically I support this as a mechanism for the client to be
>> able to explicitly prioritize an open pushed stream. I can wait for more
>> evidence about re-prioritizing, but in cases where the client hasn't ever
>> explicitly set the stream's priority I think we have evidence that its time
>> to do something.
>>>
>>>
>>> Unless there's a reason this needs to be in the current http/2 draft
>>> sooner rather than later, I'd rather punt on this discussion until we have
>>> implementation experience that can guide this debate.
>>
>>
>> I think there is experience here specifically related to push.
>>
>> e.g. You can easily configure mod_spdy to push images when html is pulled.
>> but you can't effectively dictate the relative priorities of those two
>> things.
>>
>> Sure, you can define an explicit priority for those images but priority
>> implementations are all about relative levels and the client set the
>> priority of the html.
>>
>> You can argue that mod_spdy should have defined relative priorities (+/-
>> the associated stream) instead of constants.. that would be better but the
>> client still has no way to make sure those streams are at a higher priority
>> than a "save as" background stream (I've seen this one happen as mod_spdy
>> defaults to lowest priority when pushing), or a lower priority than a
>> real-time video stream..
>>
>> plus there is no scale for the server to work with.. it might set a +2
>> priority for pushed images but the client might be using +3 for pulled
>> images causing a mismatch in something that was intended to be equally
>> weighted.
>>
>> at least with a priority frame the client can make those adjustments in a
>> RTT.
>>
>> Cheefully,
>> -Patrick
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 21:20:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC