Hi Matthew, On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, 22:25 Matthew Kerwin, <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote: > > At the risk of bike-shedding, I think calling it "enable" is a bit of an > issue. The setting, as an advertisement of the sender's capability, should > say something like "will ignore" (for disabling 7540 priorities) or "can > understand" (for enabling some other scheme). > > Unless we also feel the need to advertise "will not send"? > It's difficult for a server to guess at the client intent. Not sending PRIORITY information is also a signal to prioritise the request with default RFC7540 parameters (depend on root node with weight 16). So having a clear signal from client to server along the lines of "I don't intend to send, and don't infer any RFC7540 meaning from it" avoids that problem and my impression from Montreal was that this is a desirable goal. In Montreal we also discussed a possible experiment where the H2 PRIORITY frame contents would be repurposed, which requires a compatible server to read it correctly. In this case the signal would be more like "will send in an RFC7540-incompatible format". Lucas
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2019 11:02:02 UTC