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

Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:24:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYiZQF4LOHPK1+0drFuMUPThng_Qhs3BtS=PNigA3t=U6Q@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>
s/converted/am converting/


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:24 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> 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 23:25:22 UTC

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