- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 11:24:40 -0700
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 16 August 2013 11:04, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > This Nice header proposal seems to ascribe semantic meaning to certain nice > values. In that sense, it's very distinct from stream priorities. This semantic meaning is very loose. Intentionally. The first writeup I put together had two values: 0 and 1. Then I was convinced that some applications might want a tiny bit more flexibility, which would allow them to operate without having close coordination between the origin server and client. Learning what means what is still something that requires some degree of coordination, but that can be a little less than real-time. The key here is that the client needs to know that there is some value in dropping the reliability of the request it is making. That's unavoidable. Going from that to more than one level isn't a huge stretch, but drawing the line is the real challenge. The number and nature of possible values and expressions of policy is a massive rathole, as you might appreciate. When discussing this with colleagues here, we came up with a range of different ways to manage this, including bit maps, multidimensional coordinate systems, special labeling and a few other crazy schemes including a set of URI path regular expressions (no kidding, that was the *first* proposal floated). The current proposal is as it is because when I'm building the bike shed, I get to decide the colour.
Received on Friday, 16 August 2013 18:25:08 UTC