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

Re: PRIORITY extension

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 20:41:48 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNoc+2FPNTh_SRsf1gc1jMk40MyXHpOB_+eP+QyxoybiPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
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

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