W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 17:29:50 +1300
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <28549987-23ff-76cc-4e35-619817e420b6@treenet.co.nz>
On 30/01/19 3:56 pm, Mike Bishop wrote:
> Cliff Notes of extensions:
>   * Optional-to-understand frames can be sent without negotiation;
>     optionally also negotiate to discover there’s no point in sending
>     more of them after the connection is established.
>   * Mandatory-to-understand frames need to be negotiated first
> I could imagine a model in which the client sends priority in all
> schemes it supports in the first flight, then picks one of them to
> continue with once it sees which ones the server supports.  That makes
> the overall state on the server somewhat fluid, however.

For an optional extension the server which does not implement would
treat any first-flight priorities in the base specification manner. One
that does can start using the clients preferred way immediately.

So from the client perspective it can be predictable - albeit more
memory state to manage until the (non-)use is confirmed by arrival of
the initial server SETTINGS frame.

In theory, if one wants to put in the planning work ahead of time the
weight field values might be made dual-purpose such that re-assigning
early flight streams with PRIORITY frames is not necessary regardless of
chosen interpretation of those 8 bits.

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2019 04:30:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 January 2019 04:30:35 UTC