W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:46:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_g=DE5h6kMLHtR9w4AjpqU9J8PGucCq8BiyWG3d-WJUuw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Are there any objections to me opening a pull requests with these changes
as a more concrete proposal?

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> To change all weights, we have to issue PRIORITY frames for each root.
> Yes, changing the weight of a stream would require issuing a PRIORITY
> frame for each stream. With this proposal you cannot do it by changing the
> weight of the group.
> I believe that this is an acceptable tradeoff.
> Let me give a similar example where we reached the same conclusion:
> At one point we considered whether or not RST_STREAM should have an
> ASSOCIATED flag. The argument was that the server could send PUSH_PROMISE
> frames for some stream that the client did not want to receive pushes for.
> With the flag, the client could reset all of those streams with a single
> frame. We decided it was perfectly acceptable to send one frame for each
> stream and dropped the flag.
> With this change, to change the weight of multiple streams, you must issue
> one frame per stream, but IMHO this is worth it given the reduced
> complexity of the change, and more importantly, the ability that this
> change introduces of being able to completely proxy the priority
> information.
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2014 17:47:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC