- From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 09:31:36 -0700
- To: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:32:07 UTC
This separation would introduce a race where the server may start sending content before it knows the appropriate priority. That would be bad. On May 21, 2013 9:13 AM, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/99 > > With regards to the discussion over stream re-prioritization, I suggest: > > 1. Drop the HEADERS+PRIORITY frame type. > 2. Create a new separate PRIORITY frame type whose payload is the > Priority value, no frame-specific flags. > 3. The PRIORITY frame becomes the only way to set/change the priority > for a stream. > > If it is necessary to allow an endpoint to establish the priority of > stream prior to actually initiating the stream, we can allow sending a > PRIORITY frame before the initial HEADERS frame. Doing so would > effectively reserve the stream id (in the same general manner > PUSH_PROMISE does). > > The advantages of this approach are: > > 1. It eliminates any possible confusion and complexity about when to > use HEADERS+PRIORITY vs. HEADERS > 2. It provides a single way of setting/change stream priority (as > opposed to using HEADERS+PRIORITY plus a separate CHANGE-PRIORITY > frame) > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 16:32:07 UTC