- From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:26:52 +0000
- To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: William Chan (ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Poul-Henning, On 4 Feb 2013, at 18:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> I'm sorry I didn't address this in the first email. I confess I >> thought it was obvious. Grouping lets you do relative prioritization >> within a group, as opposed to across the entire session. > > I understood that, my question pertains to reality: What do you > get in the _real_ world scenario ? > > Likely a DoS amplification if the proxy honors the client's priority > desires... > > I'm fine with the client communicating a desired priority, I'm not > fine with 50 pages of standards-verbiage about what the other end > should do about it. I believe what is being suggested is: - The spec includes some more 'hooks' for communicating more than just a single set of priorities (as is the case with SPDY today) based on feedback from Will etc from the limitations they've found in SPDY's current prioritisation options. - Honouring of priorities and how exactly different priorities are handled/scheduled/etc is down to the implementation of the sender. So the idea is the protocol contains enough 'hooks' to sufficiently express the different priorities between & within groups that folks would like to express but isn't prescriptive about how anyone uses or implements different prioritisation, scheduling, etc schemes. HTH Ben
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 20:27:20 UTC