Martin Duke's No Objection on draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-11: (with COMMENT)

Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to Bob Briscoe for the (extensive) TSVART review. From the thread, it
looks like you have mostly addressed his concerns.

Bob's question about the definition of fairness probably relates to the rich
literature on this topic -- it's a bit more complicated than every connection
getting the same bandwidth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_measure. It
might be good to say exactly what you mean instead of falling back on the term
of art, which carries a bit more complexity than I think you're asking for. But
I think the considerations you have in Sec 13 are solid.

It's interesting that PRIORITY_UPDATE cannot be sent by the server. Is it
conceivable that processing of the request could lead to late change in the
priority of different objects.

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2021 00:36:52 UTC