- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:08:02 -0700
- To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
On 15 July 2014 16:04, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: > This applies to option (1) and the text in the pull request (https://github.com/hruellan/http2-spec/commit/bd8052410a5b29a0089f16b721d399105ddee48b ), not to option (2) and server-sent PRIORITY frames. Although I was initially in favor of (2) as well, such behavior seems very application-specific. Upload prioritization commands should be in the ALPN extension domain; this might include PRIORITY frames per se or maybe not. If you are proposing doing (1), why does this include the prioritization information in the HEADERS frame that starts the response and not the PUSH_PROMISE frame? Surely the latter would make it easier for a client to provide alternative prioritization in a timely fashion (and it would be congruent with having the client provide priority in the request).
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 23:08:30 UTC