- From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:21:04 +0800
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014–07–16, at 7:08 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > 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? There is no HEADERS associated with a push; that functionality is already rolled into PUSH_PROMISE. Such technical specification seems absent from the pull request anyway. It does not add the flag to the frame, unless more changes exist than the one I linked. If there’s still any confusion, to be clear: the latest proposal appears to apply only to PUSH_PROMISE and nothing else, so that’s what I’m talking about.
Received on Tuesday, 15 July 2014 23:21:44 UTC