- From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
- Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:41:48 -0400
- To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 00:42:15 UTC
The whole point of h2 is a prioritized, muxxed protocol with improved connection handling. Let's complete that work. -P On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 7:55 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2014–07–13, at 4:46 AM, K.Morgan@iaea.org wrote: > > > As far as I can tell, everything in h2-13 related to PRIORITY is > completely optional (please correct me if I'm wrong). > > > > I've repeatedly seen arguments against adding anything optional to the > spec. So why does PRIORITY get a pass? If it's truly optional, it could > easily be moved to a separate RFC as an extension. > > I’m in favor. > > Clients wishing to send PRIORITY should know whether the server is just > going to ignore it. It’s a good signal to use another prioritization > strategy, for example by reducing concurrency (start streams later). > > Also, it’s had the most churn of any part of the spec and practical > experience will take more time. Extension status will enable faster > evolution. > > >
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 00:42:15 UTC