Hi Glenn, Thanks for reaching out. I agree with Willy's words. I'll add that document is in AUTH48 now, and technical changes so far in the process are best avoided unless there is overwhelming evidence. Personally I'm not seeing that. Your proposal focuses on frames but there's more to it than that when it comes to priorities. It's complicated. HTTP/2 stream priorities are part of HTTP/2, if you'd like that default off, it would have to happen there, and that's asking everyone to change. It's too late for that now. Furthermore, extensible priorities can work if the client uses headers and no frames. HTTP doesn't require, or provide the means, for servers to generically advertise the request headers they support. Additionally, servers can ignore unknown frames, or parse the known PRIORITY_UPDATE frame and ignore it's contents, per the spec. It's noble to want a pattern but I don't think we have enough examples of HTTP/2 extensions at the IETF to form consensus on one. So I think it's more optimal to consider each extension on a case by case basis and apply the judgements of the community. Cheers LucasReceived on Thursday, 31 March 2022 12:07:10 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 31 March 2022 12:07:11 UTC