- From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 09:12:06 +0800
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014–07–12, at 7:07 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyhoo, I'd be happy to entertain something that allowed a server to > prioritize uploads, but this is - I think - not a great idea. Prioritization isn’t a choice. Everything must be assigned a priority in a prioritizing multiplexer. Is it reasonable to require that every PUSH gets default priority? Certainly not; the application very probably has some idea of the relative urgency of the information. Is the HTTP/2 definition of priority strong enough to stop a server from applying priority anyway? Also no; even if the priority is nominally default a server can order frames however it likes. The urge to put something clever in every special case is a destructive one. At most, second-guessing should be discouraged by a note that initialized push priority is voluntary information from the server, and usually should not be taken as a basis for negotiation. But, any program that tries to treat the other side as a slave (client or server) by constructive interpretation of the protocol is going to act pathologically anyway.
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 01:12:49 UTC