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 20:05:01 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9obL66Yz-1RsfkMMw8zEWTbWTt7c=hC1mb-BF2seHRtA=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 7:51 PM Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:

> The draft is written with that in mind, but there's no requirement in
> design or the draft that an implementation can only use the header for
> initial prioritization.  Chrome uses the frame for initial priority and
> updates and it seems to work fine.  Obviously only the frame can be used
> for reprioritization.  I expect Google HTTP/3 servers will end up
> supporting both.
>
> But I think the draft should be updated to describe the frame as HBH and
> able to be used for either initial or priority updates.
>
> In practice, due to reordering, implementations need to handle receiving
> the frame prior to the request anyway.
>
> I hope that clarifies my thinking, Ian
>

Based on your implementation experience, would you be happy with the frame
being restricted to only being sent on the control stream? Or do you see
some need for allowing that frame on the request stream (noting that doing
so adds challenges to making it work with HTTP/2)?
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2020 20:05:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 5 March 2020 20:05:26 UTC