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

Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:24:43 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYj6R0dQB5yZUz9e2Dgd9mQDgcMWMKCfHY8Hd16XqE-2QQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think they should use strict prioritization. If it's long-lived
prioritization, the client is free to update the advisory priority with a
new PRIORITY frame. Moreover, in the prioritization proposal I emailed out
before and converted into an I-D, it's possible to reprioritize to assign
weighting instead of dependencies. If you truly want weighting, use a
weight.


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> On 4 December 2013 13:23, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>
>> Surely in practise there will need to be some processing of pending
>> lower-priority streams whilst there is still higher priority traffic
>> pending.  So the prioritisation would be more like a weighting than a
>> strict prioritisation.
>
>
> Yes, that would be how I'd interpret that.  We should probably even *say*
> that, so that we don't generate situations where clients are reluctant to
> prioritize certain types of resources in certain ways lest they generate a
> starvation situation for themselves.
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 23:25:13 UTC

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