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

Re: Priority straw man

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:40:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_iBuYeM+NufNsuJkQLbmNKq=HyowBHsndPX6aXpi2=_9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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 capitulate that the cost of collision would probably not be noticeable
nor would any distinction in priorities be necessarily meaningful


> 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).
>

for web browsing, sure, but for streaming services a single request per
client is enough
Received on Monday, 27 January 2014 19:41:08 UTC

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