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

Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 08:47:35 +1000
Message-Id: <B5BA50DD-2A46-4E35-AD71-507E46156BF6@mnot.net>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
For those who haven't seen it:
  https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/453

Cheers,


On 10 Apr 2014, at 3:46 am, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
> 
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 14 April 2014 22:45:06 UTC

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