- From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 14:18:24 -0500
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jun 16, 2014, at 6:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> Page 22ff: Priority >>> ------------------- >>> >>> I think the PRIORITY stuff is going to be trouble and will need >>> revisions later on to truly work. >>> >>> It will also be the first thing implementors skip in order to get >>> something working fast, and they may never come back and implement >>> it, unless serious numbers show it's worth the complexity. > > That seems to be an increasingly popular opinion. As of this moment, > it's marked at risk and unless we get the serious numbers, I suspect > that it will be removed in one way or another. I share this opinion. The priority frames introduce way too much complexity for what is essentially a hint. Assuming it’s followed, it’s possible that the processing overhead of client directed scheduling might end up causing the very problem it’s intending to address. Finally, since HTTP/2 is already over TCP, send order already offers clients a mechanism for assigning priority (although admittedly a bit basic). It seems this would actually be a better fit as an extension. -- Jason T. Greene WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 19:18:57 UTC