Re: WGLC for HTTP Priorities


I had a few comments on the draft, but in general it seems fine.

Section 1:
- It might be useful to mention something to the effect of 'Expressing priority is only a suggestion’ as is later detailed in section 10.

Section 4:
"If intermediaries want to specify prioritization on a multiplexed HTTP connection, they SHOULD use a PRIORITY_UPDATE frame and SHOULD NOT change the Priority header field.”
- So an intermediary not using multiplexed HTTP can change the Priority header field?

Section 10:
- It could be useful to expand the PTO acronym

I was curious if there were any open implementations available of this in a server/proxy?



On 6 Oct 2021, at 00:15, Tommy Pauly <<>> wrote:

Hello all,

Thanks to everyone who joined our interim calls last week!

This email starts a working group last call for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority, "Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP”.

Please review the document and reply to this email with your comments, and if you think this document is ready to progress. You can also file issues with the tag “priorities” at

This last call will be open for two weeks, ending on Wednesday, October 20.


Received on Friday, 15 October 2021 15:35:46 UTC