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

Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions

From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 16:29:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYh_6fRyr8y90CmOC0GcxosXi3CW1hy5fPTD9=LZv9ePqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Watson <watsonm@netflix.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

Just to be clear, you've identified a problem with a single priority
context, since it makes every priority value global. But you could group
streams into a priority context/group, in which case you have relative
prioritization within groups. And amongst different groups, you should
probably use weighting.

On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> With our proposal (which Will is writing up), we address the proxy problem
> directly.
> It was one of the motivations for the proposal in the first place :)
> -=R
> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
>> To: "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>> Cc: "Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>; "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com>;
>> "Mark Watson" <watsonm@netflix.com>; "HTTP Working Group" <
>> ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
>> Sent: 5/12/2013 12:24:43 p.m.
>> Subject: Re: Some HTTP 2.0 questions
>>  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.
>> if there are multiple clients on the connection, this is just a race to
>> the top priority level.  Also requires the client to try to figure out what
>> the server is doing to send more commands that the server then needs to
>> process amongst all the other things it is already doing.  I don't think
>> this will result in a great deployment experience.
>> we found from our bandwidth control experience, that you still need to
>> process some lower priority stuff occasionally.
>> Maybe this means we should ditch priority for weighting.  Or strongly
>> discourage priority (if it is to be strict) in favour of weighting?
>>  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 Thursday, 5 December 2013 00:29:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC