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

Re: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 11:18:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdeQ48L0DcP1UsBwnSBMQPzMQYydkjBVz-e3DqkxEQxDA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
+1 to what Martin says.
Also, remember that proxies are clients too, and must manage far more
streams.
-=R


On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 15 April 2014 10:54, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15 April 2014 10:49, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> >> I have no current plans to leverage something like this, but I could
> >> conceive of needing this. My two cents is that if it's any non-trivial
> >> complexity, don't support it, since it can already be done by other
> means.
> >> But if it's trivial complexity, then sure, maybe we'll use it. And by
> >> complexity, I don't mean just implementation complexity, but also spec
> >> complexity. .
> >
>
> Arguably, the special case adds complexity to implementations and
> spec.  But it's pretty minor.  The only reason we might want to
> prohibit this is if it could be (for example) used to create DoS or it
> could trigger bugs, etc...
>
> It's hard to imagine either of those.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2014 18:18:35 UTC

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