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

Call for Consensus: HTTP/2 Priorities Proposal

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 16:37:37 +1000
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <AC1DF82E-AA83-49F0-A63D-6F33896AA474@mnot.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To magnify this a bit --

So far, I've heard reactions that range from neutrality to general support for Jeff's proposal <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/453>. 

We're late for declaring our next implementation draft, and have a few issues to clean up. So, unless I hear significant pushback on doing so in the next ~3 days, we'll incorporate Jeff's pull request into -12 and call that an implementation draft (along with any other changes we agree upon).

Keep in mind that this is deciding what to put into the next implementation draft -- we may still add to it or even change it based upon our experience with it and NYC. That said, we also have a strong desire to finish this work, so we don't have too many iterations to play with it.


On 18 Apr 2014, at 11:17 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 8 April 2014 16:23, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
>> I believe it would be simpler (both conceptually and in practice) to
>> slightly modify the priority structure.
> Looking back at this, this proposal makes the following two changes:
> 1. removes priority groups
> 2. adds weights at all levels of the dependency tree (as opposed to
> just at the grouping layer)
> The first removes some capabilities, as has been noted elsewhere.  The
> ability to create and weight a named thing that is independent of any
> stream is a features, but it's also complexity.  This is a net
> complexity loss.

I think you mean "improvement" here...

> The second is arguably an expansion of the capabilities, which could
> be perceived as an increase in complexity, except for the fact that it
> basically just removes a special case.  This is an increase in
> capability, which might be perceived equally as an increase in
> complexity or an increase in uniformity.
> Personally, I'd like to hear more of what others think about this.
> The comments I've seen are generally favourable, but I know that Mike
> wants more time to consider the implications.
> Is there anyone else on the fence, or - probably more importantly -
> opposed to making this change?

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 06:35:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC