s/converted/am converting/ On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:24 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote: > 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 23:25:22 UTC