- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 11:06:03 -0400
- To: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Herve, I think it might be helpful to have an explicit semantic split in the spec — right now we say “priority” when we really mean *requested* priority. Talking to Martin about this offline, i think it makes sense to specify our current uses as “requested priority” and add a new field to PUSH_PROMISE as “applied priority”. Does that make sense? On 16 Jul 2014, at 8:20 am, RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote: > So I think that where we're heading to is the following: > - The priority information included in a PRIORITY frame or a HEADER frame is a hint from a client to the server on how to allocate resources. > - There are optional priority fields in the PUSH_PROMISE frame that allows a server to expose its intent on how it will allocate resources for pushed streams. > > This would suit me. > > I can draft an updated proposal for this. > > Hervé. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] >> Sent: mercredi 16 juillet 2014 01:30 >> To: David Krauss >> Cc: RUELLAN Herve; HTTP Working Group >> Subject: Re: #539: Priority from server to client >> >> On 15 July 2014 16:21, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >> >> If you are talking about the same proposal (#526), then I don't think >> that you claim is well supported by the content of that proposal. I >> think that if that is the case, then we need to have an updated >> proposal. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 21 July 2014 15:06:29 UTC