- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 08:11:42 +0200
- To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>
Hi Kari, On Thu, Aug 01, 2019 at 08:09:16AM +0300, Kari Hurtta wrote: > > I think the confusing part comes from the ENABLE word in the setting > > name. We could proceed differently by exchanging a supported model > > for priorities : SETTINGS_HTTP2_PRIORITY_MODEL > > It could then take the following values : > > > > 0 (default) : as specified in RFC7540 > > 1 : priorities not sent and silently ignored > > 2 and above : to be documented in future specifications > > > > This way it seems more natural to consider that unless advertised, we > > stay on RFC7540 and nothing changes. > > > > Willy > > This is almost same than my SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME suggestion. Yes that's what I mentioned afterwards, I've read messages in different order and found yours after I responded above :-) Thus I fully support it of course. > It have only 1 and 0 flipped. > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2019JulSep/0140.html Yep. I tend to prefer keeping zero the default, it generally is easier to assume that "unset == not changed from default". But this is a very minor detail. > Then incompatibility with HTTP/3's SETTINGS frame was cited. > > https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2019JulSep/0141.html Noted as well. Thanks, Willy
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2019 06:12:12 UTC