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

Re: h2 priority

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 23:44:59 +1200
Message-ID: <5406FF3B.6030806@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 3/09/2014 6:42 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> Roy,
> 
> It seems like the possibilities you map out are:
> 
> 1. Make Priorities a request header field (removing it from
> HEADERS)
> 
> This isn’t a complete solution, because we’ve also identified the
> need to reprioritise existing streams. So, we’d still need a
> separate frame type; however, this would allow priority to be moved
> out of HEADERS.
> 
> Intermediaries would need to parse the header (but they already
> need to parse the pseudo-headers, so that’s not necessarily a deal
> breaker) and set the header for upstream traffic (which arguably is
> more expensive than keeping it in the frame header).
> 
> 2. Require priority to be sent in a PRIORITY frame (removing it
> from HEADERS)
> 
> As you point out, this would incur the overhead of an additional
> frame; AIUI browsers want to set priority for every request, so
> this would effectively double the frame overhead for all of their
> requests.
> 
> Yet again, I don’t see concrete interoperability problems here —
> just a stated preference for a change. As we’ve said before, the
> bar for such changes has been raising considerably as we’ve worked
> through the process, and at this late stage, we really need to see
> broad support for a change to make it in, absent real security or
> interoperability problems (before you ask, this has been confirmed
> with our AD).
> 
> So, what do people think?

That I've witnessed a large number of little bits and pieces of
annoyance complained about repeatedly which individually do not make
som earbitrary "bar". But the nature of annoyances like these is that
many little ones accumulate into a big problem.

Perhapse WGLC is a good time for a re-count by chair and editors to
see if the total of the small improvements add up to enough for a mass
fix?

Amos

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUBv87AAoJELJo5wb/XPRj+BIIAKObXQLgxZU4hhW0d9EXsjCp
nfIcKG148QmYwZizH6S6s7iO/uBbrecBdpWrb86Nh13s8vKfc9/xmUqpyslmlz7I
mjBZBKnQXezfV/usZ3VwE2XCX6fv4o/xQRdu6oXJCR2Z902Y8zOiGw6oNE8euT7X
Q/dM+J2GS9vFRHRtopTbplVIi1L/pSYLU31PDAPYnRjrWujEcFKvRDsm27qn5sMZ
KTuz1vu/GYP6i1+wxYiPWwT93Af6ENyD71jdaCWdAtrHdC/8jiUVt0hR4tF0f/Jq
BqSOddf2K3ml/KgepjXAq1bAI5y64SAsrloqDiymdGd9cB2UJMVvOSgNbq0gWe4=
=L/o6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 3 September 2014 11:45:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:10 UTC