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

Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 15:44:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdofbbLK36GKKHWcMQDP3hT=gtuLFjuwx0CPtKW4V_ydA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
With our proposal (which Will is writing up), we address the proxy problem
directly.
It was one of the motivations for the proposal in the first place :)

-=R


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:

>
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
> 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>
> Sent: 5/12/2013 12:24:43 p.m.
> Subject: Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions
>
>  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.
>
> if there are multiple clients on the connection, this is just a race to
> the top priority level.  Also requires the client to try to figure out what
> the server is doing to send more commands that the server then needs to
> process amongst all the other things it is already doing.  I don't think
> this will result in a great deployment experience.
>
> we found from our bandwidth control experience, that you still need to
> process some lower priority stuff occasionally.
>
> Maybe this means we should ditch priority for weighting.  Or strongly
> discourage priority (if it is to be strict) in favour of weighting?
>
>
>  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 23:45:02 UTC

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