Re: Comments on Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP


I agree with the majority of Willy says here.

I want to reiterate that the draft-ietf-httpbis-prioirty isn't a proposal,
it has WG and IETF consensus, and IESG approval to be published as an RFC.
It will be published any day soon. I do not believe the discussion points
here are substantial enough, or provide sufficient new information, to
warrant reopening the design aspects with the working group and running
through the entire process all over again.

7540bis has deprecated stream priorities; see
This too has WG and IETF consensus, and approval to be published. 7540bis
along with a large number of other HTTP-related documents are in late
stages of such as AUTH48. Revisiting Extensible Priorities risks adding
more delays and I don't think there is reasonable motivation to do that.

Extensible Priorities does not prevent a subsequent draft being made that
invents a priority scheme negotiation mechanism that will work with HTTP/2
and HTTP/3. Proponents of doing so can run the process of gathering
interest and seeking adoption. Personally, I'm pessimistic such effort is
worth it until there is an actual alternative scheme that would need it.


Received on Saturday, 9 April 2022 16:35:16 UTC