- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2014 21:29:56 -0800
- To: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 5 November 2014 18:48, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> wrote: > Can't we use just HEADERS with a priority flag and no header block as a > group anchor > instead of using PRIORITY for an idle stream? I'm concerned that will result in problems for servers. There will always be a header block, but it will just be empty. If there are missing header fields, then the server will reject the "request". > This might work since the reference sets has gone and a stream timeout is > not defined yet in the current spec. > > I'm worrying about the idle stream in the priority tree is out of > SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS. There is already a need to maintain priority information that is independent of the concurrent stream limit and to have nodes in the tree that are not active. See http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#priority-gc This just makes that a little bit more flexible.
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2014 05:30:29 UTC