I think they should use strict prioritization. If it's long-lived prioritization, the client is free to update the advisory priority with a new PRIORITY frame. Moreover, in the prioritization proposal I emailed out before and converted into an I-D, it's possible to reprioritize to assign weighting instead of dependencies. If you truly want weighting, use a weight. On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote: > > On 4 December 2013 13:23, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote: > >> Surely in practise there will need to be some processing of pending >> lower-priority streams whilst there is still higher priority traffic >> pending. So the prioritisation would be more like a weighting than a >> strict prioritisation. > > > Yes, that would be how I'd interpret that. We should probably even *say* > that, so that we don't generate situations where clients are reluctant to > prioritize certain types of resources in certain ways lest they generate a > starvation situation for themselves. >
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2013 23:25:13 UTC