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

Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 12:21:33 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=K8ixeTE2XURYmuDb0erAfY3R_dHLkoYDz2FNaQZ+oOvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
2014/04/10 0:05 "Jeff Pinner" <jpinner@twitter.com>:
>>
>> 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.
>
>

Proxy friendliness is a strong point for this proposal. I am not sure it
really reduces the overall complexity without concrete specification since
detail matters a lot in this case. I have no strong objection here.

Does this block next implementation draft?

Best regards,
Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
Received on Thursday, 10 April 2014 03:21:59 UTC

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