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 21:53:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oY9uvm8vF2g7hQNMOt2UzgMezCoiUJve4Q=qo9kwCm3-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I agree with the points made but I think my question was unclear of my
intent. So let me rephrase it as: HTTP/2 allows the PRIORITY frame to be
sent on a stream at any point. Do we want to allow NU_PRIORITY on request
streams but constrain the states that it can be sent in?

Given that we're trying to define something that works equivalently across
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, my inclination is that restricting NU_PRIORITY to stream
0 and the control stream achieves that.


On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:40 PM Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:

> Martin's concern is exactly right.
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 4:24 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020, at 07:43, Roberto Peon wrote:
>> > Until HTTP offers chunk-extensions again, I don’t see how it can be
>> otherwise?
>>
>> I don't think that's the concern, it's that there is no way for a client
>> to send an update if the request stream is closed.  At least in QUIC.
>>
>>
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2020 21:54:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 5 March 2020 21:54:16 UTC