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

Re: Priority straw man

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:34:21 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVseC5hp6XsJ1Bmw3pxmaGfKD7N7L3sJWv-N93JBENA6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 27 January 2014 10:59, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:
> assume independent clients so each connection becomes its own stream in its
> own group

That's a reasonable thing to do.  The key questions are:
 - do you want fate sharing to that degree?
 - is there a meaningful distinction, priority-wise, that can be made
at this point?
 - would the cost of a collision (two clients hitting the same
priority group) be noticeable?

I'll also note that at 16m groups, each client gets, on average, 128
requests before you need to make a new connection.  That's not very
many.  I'd have thought that you would be better off asking for more
stream identifiers (I'll note that we could use that reserved bit with
this scheme, but that only doubles the space).
Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 19:34:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:23 UTC