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

Re: Sending priority from a server

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 21:01:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNde21BLX3sePc0T05bVdyqfj1bsXh-R_dBXOyZ3AzgwSg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I used to think sending the priority from the server was a decent idea, but
then I though about exactly what Martin is worried about:
If the server informs the client about how it is prioritizing, and the
client disagrees, then it attempts to change it.
.. and if the server then advertises the same thing...
.. rinse repeat.

You can get into nasty situations.

It is more robust to simply have the client state the priority if it cares.
-=R


On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 8:54 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On 2014–07–12, at 11:40 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I don't think that there is a misunderstanding.  Whenever you have
> both "you should do X" and "I'm doing X" conflated as this does,
> negotiation is a naturally emergent property.  So you get a push and
> the server says that it is p3, but you want it to be p7, what happens
> is a negotiation, no matter how hard you say it isn't.
>
>
> Right. Resultant negotiation may be an emergent property from a larger
> prioritization system, for example if a client is going to negotiate
> anyway, then knowing the original nominal priority may be useful.
>
> However, there should never be "if ( push_frame.priority ) negotiate();".
>
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 04:02:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC