W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2016

RE: Recursive HTTP/2 Push

From: Lucas Pardue <Lucas.Pardue@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 12:19:07 +0000
To: Alcides Viamontes E <alcidesv@zunzun.se>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7CF7F94CB496BF4FAB1676F375F9666A2A77A18B@bgb01xud1001>

On Tue, Feb 9, Alcides Viamontes E wrote:


> A related question  is how and if browsers do issue PRIORITY frames on pushed streams? Is there anything on the RFC about that? I can not find anything pro- or against....

From what I have read of the servers that support server push and configurable prioritisation, the priority of connection usage is often based using the resource type. For example see mod_http2's H2PushPriority Directive[1] or h2O[2].

I would anticipate that a client would be well within its rights to reprioritise a pushed stream, especially if the server is not browser sniffing and just using a default (inefficient) priority. Examples would be bumping resources on the critical path, or vice-versa. However, I'm not sure how responsive the server would be to this, having already allocated its resources upfront.


[1] https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_http2.html#h2pushpriority

[2] https://h2o.examp1e.net/configure/http2_directives.html



-----------------------------
http://www.bbc.co.uk

This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and
may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in
error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the
information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender
immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails
sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to
this.
-----------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2016 12:19:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 22 March 2016 12:47:11 UTC