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

Re: #539: Priority from server to client

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2014 16:08:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVkaqfiaF64nJx1noMH5WzBuuM1oNJ5Vx38M89n8Jsg-Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
On 15 July 2014 16:04, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:
> This applies to option (1) and the text in the pull request (https://github.com/hruellan/http2-spec/commit/bd8052410a5b29a0089f16b721d399105ddee48b ), not to option (2) and server-sent PRIORITY frames. Although I was initially in favor of (2) as well, such behavior seems very application-specific. Upload prioritization commands should be in the ALPN extension domain; this might include PRIORITY frames per se or maybe not.

If you are proposing doing (1), why does this include the
prioritization information in the HEADERS frame that starts the
response and not the PUSH_PROMISE frame?  Surely the latter would make
it easier for a client to provide alternative prioritization in a
timely fashion (and it would be congruent with having the client
provide priority in the request).
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 23:08:30 UTC

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