- From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 4 May 2019 15:24:25 +0100
- To: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CALGR9oYKZq=Vmo4TCVohvFjMB1OP6Fc+QbfcVkmwwGcHjuCF-A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 9:26 PM Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote: > > This thread got far ahead of me, but I wanted to ask for more motivation > behind the tree structure(links welcome). 'Google' may have argued for it, > but that doesn't mean it was ever used as envisioned. Is anyone else > taking advantage of it? > > For convenience, here is a potted history I recently put together, it doesn't answer all questions: * HTTP/2 up to draft 10 had a scheme similar to SPDY/3.1 * Proposal for stream dependencies in SPDY/4 - Oct 2012 [1] * "http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies" [2] - mailig list thread Feb 2013 * "Restarting the discussion on HTTP/2 stream priorities" [3] - mailing list thread Oct 2013 alluding to Seattle interim discussion. * HTTP/2 Stream Dependencies I-D - Jan 2014 [4] * Mailing list thread for comments on the I-D [5] * Introduction of dependencies to HTTP/2 draft 11 diff, Feb 2014 [6] * Diff of changes to PRIORITY frame between draft 11 and RFC 7540 [7] [1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pNj2op5Y4r1AdnsG8bapS79b11iWDCStjCNHo3AWD0g/edit#heading=h.fu9pi3zfp7k5 [2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/0554.html [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013OctDec/0366.html [4] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chan-http2-stream-dependencies-00 [5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JanMar/0090.html [6] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-11.txt [7] https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-11.txt&url2=rfc7540
Received on Saturday, 4 May 2019 14:24:58 UTC