W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2019

Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal

From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 07:21:31 +0900
Message-ID: <CALGR9oaqtZb6AiWaxLMSq=W5-USR5_0B+3PvyjEuERT7sw2z3A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hey Mark,

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019, 06:58 Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net wrote:

> My sense is that people know that we need to do something about
> prioritisation, but we're not yet confident about any particular solution.
> Experimentation with new schemes as HTTP/2 extensions would be very
> helpful, as it would give us some data to work with. If you'd like to
> propose such an extension, this is the right place to do it.
>

The small amount of thinking I did on this lead me to a different
conclusion. That it would be easier to experiment with new prioritization
schemes in HTTP/3, due mainly to the removal of priority information from
the H3 HEADERS frame. This makes it quite feasible to write an extension
along the lines of "the extension replaces/supersedes the base standard
PRIORITY frame when negotiated". In contrast, a H2 extension either needs
to define a new HEADERS format or provide supplemental information in the
form of a new frame, which is possible but a bit redundant.

There didn't seem to be much appetite for adopting H3 priority placeholder
design in H2 (I cant remember when this was presented, sorry). I'd be
curious to know if there is more interest in other alternate priority
schemes in H2.

Lucas

>
Received on Monday, 28 January 2019 22:22:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 28 January 2019 22:22:06 UTC