W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2020

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt

From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 19:43:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZ9sHGtr5yNHCKM9Hgp7nHAz4WTaTF=AerD666dCmF14g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Hi Ian,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:

> Thanks for updating this draft.
>
> On the point of headers vs frame, based on my experience leading the
> design team and the slightly wider scope of use cases that are now on the
> table, which includes server-side reprioritization, I see the compromise of
> having both a frame and a header as the only way forward which has the
> ability to gain consensus.  I also truly believe there are valid use cases
> for both.
>
> I propose we should own that position and seek to describe the properties
> of each clearly.
>
> Thanks, Ian
>

 Thanks for sharing your current thinking. Clarification question, the
present design has an symmetrical design that constrains when and where
where the signal carrier is used: headers are used for initial priority,
and frames are used for reprioritization. You position supports both
carriers but does it support this constraint?

I'd also welcome other people's thoughts on this topic.

Lucas
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2020 19:44:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 5 March 2020 19:44:01 UTC