- From: Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH) <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 23:53:35 +0000
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- CC: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On April 13, 2013 11:13 AM, "Roberto Peon" < grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > This is for prioritization experimentation in the future. The bit allows for priority level vs resource ordering without bloating the payload of a reprint frame. > It was originally for control vs data. >> On Apr 12, 2013 11:50 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> Looking at the minutes from Tokyo, this was originally for control vs. data (as in SPDY). >> I think there's been some discussion about discarding the control bit; OTOH, if people are going to define extension frames, it'd be nice for intermediaries to know whether they count against flow control without having to understand their semantics... <snip> Roberto, are you referring to the stream dependency/reprioritization proposal discussed in Tokyo (https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/7) ? Also did automatic error correction morph "REPRI" into "reprint"? My preference would be for a implementation draft to reflect "complete" features. As future experiments demonstrate their value and reach consensus, then the entire logical set of changes could be adopted together. We had a pretty good discussion about informal/minimalist principles in Tokyo. It might be worth a few minutes at the next interim meeting in June to discuss further and clarify the bar for inclusion. Since we're iterating on a series of experimental implementations, it seems easy enough to add changes in the future? Thanks, ...Brian
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 23:55:49 UTC