- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 15:33:16 -1000
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@mozilla.com>
This was discussed in the Honolulu meeting; it seemed reasonable to people in the room and there was no objection. Any last thoughts on the list? Otherwise, I’ll mark as editor-ready so Martin can integrate the pull request. Cheers, > On 5 Nov 2014, at 2:28 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > > There seems to be some support for this, so I've created <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/642>. > > As you all know, we need to see substantial support and little (if any) dissent to take this kind of change at this point in the process. > > Anyone else care to comment? > > The proposal is: > >> Make it so that PRIORITY can be sent on a stream in ANY state. >> i.e., change so that PRIORITY is permitted in the "idle" state. > > > Martin, please start work on a pull so people can take a look. > > >> On 6 Nov 2014, at 2:35 am, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> SGTM-- moving this from unreliable to reliable behavior seems like a definite win for intermediaries, and potentially others. >> -=R >> >> On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> What do other people think about the general idea? >> >> I like it. I think it moves the discussion from "you could bend the protocol to do this assuming you have a cooperating client+server", which is not something we can reasonably rely on as a browser, to a plausible "PRIORITY is allowed on idle stream, treat such streams as 'group anchors'"... i.e. allowing priority on idle stream means servers *must* deal with this case, which makes using and deploying such mechanism much more plausible. >> >> ig >> > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:33:41 UTC