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

Re: Default stream priority

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 14:16:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgwLdf6kuq1_93PLd6T_nftRO6nCiw22-DyrU=ksTnDvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Yes, agreed. If we don't adopt the new prioritization proposal with stream
dependencies, then we probably want to shrink the priority field. You can
consider the current length of the priority field a reflection of the
unclear future of prioritization in HTTP/2.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
> seems nuts to me to allow so many priority levels.
>
> Think about how someone will implement this.... probably some sort of
> multiple queue or buckets.  You're not going to make 2 billion buckets.
> Probably 8 different priority levels even would be more than is needed.
>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
> To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> Cc: "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
> Sent: 5/12/2013 10:49:00 a.m.
> Subject: Re: Default stream priority
>
>  What's the goal here? To make the default be low, but not the lowest
> priority?
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Looks like my math was off again...
>>
>> I got an email this morning pointing out that with the high bit
>> reserved, a default priority of 2^30 is actually the lowest priority.
>>
>> Is there any reason that this can't be changed to 2^29?  i.e.,
>> 0x20000000 rather than the current 0x40000000.
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 22:17:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:20 UTC