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

Re: #642: Allowing PRIORITY on streams in any any state. [was: Concerns about HTTP/2 Priority]

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 13:15:38 +1100
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@mozilla.com>
Message-Id: <0E57F1FA-109E-4C06-85F9-3FE37F149BA1@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
It sounds like we have consensus to do this, with some editorial input.

Marking editor-ready.


> On 12 Nov 2014, at 12:33 pm, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 17 November 2014 02:16:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:34 UTC