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

Re: #539: Priority from server to client

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:06:03 -0400
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1B5EA3A0-9CB3-4103-98EA-D63DCCB16F32@mnot.net>
To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>

I think it might be helpful to have an explicit semantic split in the spec — right now we say “priority” when we really mean *requested* priority.

Talking to Martin about this offline, i think it makes sense to specify our current uses as “requested priority” and add a new field to PUSH_PROMISE as “applied priority”.

Does that make sense?

On 16 Jul 2014, at 8:20 am, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote:

> So I think that where we're heading to is the following:
> - The priority information included in a PRIORITY frame or a HEADER frame is a hint from a client to the server on how to allocate resources.
> - There are optional priority fields in the PUSH_PROMISE frame that allows a server to expose its intent on how it will allocate resources for pushed streams.
> This would suit me.
> I can draft an updated proposal for this.
> Hervé.
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
>> Sent: mercredi 16 juillet 2014 01:30
>> To: David Krauss
>> Cc: RUELLAN Herve; HTTP Working Group
>> Subject: Re: #539: Priority from server to client
>> On 15 July 2014 16:21, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> If there’s still any confusion, to be clear: the latest proposal appears to apply
>> only to PUSH_PROMISE and nothing else, so that’s what I’m talking about.
>> If you are talking about the same proposal (#526), then I don't think
>> that you claim is well supported by the content of that proposal.  I
>> think that if that is the case, then we need to have an updated
>> proposal.

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 15:06:29 UTC

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