Re: #539: Priority from server to client

The garden implementation path is that a client sends a PRIORITY frame on a
push stream when it locally identifies a need (and prioritization) for that
resource, and not until then. Thus having the server advertise applied
priority appears useful only to a client which has an opinion about
priority that differs from the server, yet is willing to be overruled by
the server anyway.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it's not clear to me that there's a
real use case out there that's enabled by this.


On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> 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/
>
>
>
>
>