W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: PRIORITY extension

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:58:17 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=JiKd9nxgDFThrYCs5cUm3V36pnECpBL2J9vGRGbiFVGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, K.Morgan@iaea.org, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
2014/07/14 9:46 "Patrick McManus" <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>:
>
> The whole point of h2 is a prioritized, muxxed protocol with improved
connection handling.
>
> Let's complete that work.
>

I couldn't agree more.
Removing PRIORITY is really bad idea.

Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa

> -P
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:55 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2014–07–13, at 4:46 AM, K.Morgan@iaea.org wrote:
>>
>> > As far as I can tell, everything in h2-13 related to PRIORITY is
completely optional (please correct me if I'm wrong).
>> >
>> > I've repeatedly seen arguments against adding anything optional to the
spec. So why does PRIORITY get a pass? If it's truly optional, it could
easily be moved to a separate RFC as an extension.
>>
>> I’m in favor.
>>
>> Clients wishing to send PRIORITY should know whether the server is just
going to ignore it. It’s a good signal to use another prioritization
strategy, for example by reducing concurrency (start streams later).
>>
>> Also, it’s had the most churn of any part of the spec and practical
experience will take more time. Extension status will enable faster
evolution.
>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 00:58:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC