W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2013

Re: Nice

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 20:04:49 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYiX4U7oootmNsN9HAPbRcA6Gy-YXcSYg1tOEgmSaN9SnQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Stream priority is only relative to other streams in a HTTP/2 connection.
The absolute values themselves carry no semantic meaning. They're purely
relative.

This Nice header proposal seems to ascribe semantic meaning to certain nice
values. In that sense, it's very distinct from stream priorities.


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:57 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> My immediate first response is: how does this overlap with Stream
> priority.. I know this is a separate thing but it would be good to
> make it clear how these intersect.
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Martin Thomson
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On a different end of the spectrum that we're used to operating in for
> > HTTP/2.0, this is a small proposal for a header that advises
> > intermediaries about the relative (un)priority of requests.
> >
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-nice-00
> >
> > This is probably most useful for constrained servers (I've put core on
> BCC).
> >
> > --Martin
> >
> > p.s., The title isn't a value judgement, it's a nod to the unix
> > utility (thanks to Richard Barnes for pointing this out).
> >
>
>
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 18:05:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:14 UTC