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


From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 13:31:37 +1300
Message-ID: <5126BC69.50605@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 22/02/2013 12:54 p.m., Roberto Peon wrote:
> I mean that SYN_STREAM has a priority, which is mandatory because 
> without it the browser won't trust the server-side to do the right thing.
> SYN_REPLY doesn't have one, because it doesn't need to declare 
> priority-- the SYN_STREAM already did that, and it is almost always a 
> waste to include a priority field in SYN_REPLY.

When we start rationalizing server-push semantics so multiple replies 
can be sent for one request. Most of the replies will need to be 
assigned some lower priority than the requested reply - hopefully all 
within the one stream. We will have to define a new response frame 
entirely to replace reply. Why not just do it now and have initial 
implementations compatible with those later ones?

Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 00:32:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC