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

RE: Sending priority from a server

From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:44:22 +0000
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E532D8EA67@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
Yes, that's what I'm looking for: if the client is OK with the server choice it doesn't have to do anything, otherwise, it can express its wishes to the server.

I would add that the client gets the last word only up to a point: the server can ignore all the priority information sent by the client.

Hervé.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Krauss [mailto:potswa@gmail.com]
> Sent: samedi 12 juillet 2014 11:20
> To: Amos Jeffries
> Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Sending priority from a server
> 
> 
> On 2014-07-12, at 4:51 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> 
> > Lets converse then:
> >
> > client: HEADERS (s=1, p=999)
> >  "I want this. top-priority!"
> >
> > server: PUSH (s1 + s=2, p=4)
> >   "s=1 comes with extras. I will send in background, real SLOW"
> >
> > client: PRIORITY (s=2, p=999)
> >  "I want those top-priority as well!"
> >
> >
> > Seems reasonable information exchange. Still no obligation on the server
> > to actually use the client hints.
> 
> Exactly. The server gets to default to whatever priority it likes, and the client
> still unconditionally gets the last word.
> 
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 16:48:40 UTC

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