Re: Design Issue: PUSH_PROMISE and Stream Priority

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5037321F976A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:37:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LTkHQ5Vt4DmU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4189E21F974D for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UVYWZ-0006i4-97 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:36:35 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:36:35 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UVYWZ-0006i4-97@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UVYWU-0006hF-IS for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:36:30 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UVYWT-00025t-R5 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 02:36:30 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id dn14so3159995obc.13 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=lWuryuk2Jh+rFGxbb/zWAFVTEjHSleQcEebnjbWmdbs=; b=FxG7UIWGS7asY0VpqeUCyRGGh6HStyuPHmebgEUdPXa8D2m/TUBdyT9SShncFTz0vl 5qwhY3+wjNu+jMjxHjtL+nBbCeawJDWm6rKEzuhdjLb2SZTKQCArZD8ZRk7NYy544QVk M8g5WCjoBMFDh71IJddAhdB4TeKkswoxDM+4g5jwGCzxs2gOD3AUKmllBPBdCzNenK/c Mke8Zo1PhdsV5e2Xk1k6eY0iJcp1EP0YmyK+D2NFA1ZvGd2flN2AO+BHc2nG/p8CVwo1 U+w00jkUCFUQm3SovG1a3WpP1Kk5hKHKQvflgb4QnZiCS2/xnTUOPuPSK0mxYcYLwDHQ FL1A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.58.99 with SMTP id p3mr7314956oeq.23.1366943763693; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.12.103 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.12.103 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUBEvDtNQM8G5vyfyqRz4tQ8su9+14gMTdaXhzY2cq+Kg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7Rbf_hZ036vUs4LNTrGQ91kft2_97aV-9Gi2KVJnUJphbNA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUBEvDtNQM8G5vyfyqRz4tQ8su9+14gMTdaXhzY2cq+Kg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:36:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNdxCcs+J3nhFE6nusAsZLwSG=WMEhHZK0FZjgQQVveHAw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d075876d45b04db3a6505
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.685, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UVYWT-00025t-R5 fd9969a056a15a0862d904876fed63f7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: PUSH_PROMISE and Stream Priority
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNdxCcs+J3nhFE6nusAsZLwSG=WMEhHZK0FZjgQQVveHAw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17594
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I am traveling but should be back by Monday. I'll be slow before then as
I'm having to type in the phone.
On Apr 25, 2013 6:50 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:

> Good point.  The hope was that a reprioritization frame would be
> proposed (Will, Roberto, we're all still waiting).
>
> If that's enough, then adding a default (maybe 2^30) would fix this.
>
> On 25 April 2013 11:03, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:
> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/75
> >
> > The current draft (-02) says, "The endpoint establishing a new stream
> > can assign a priority for the stream."
> >
> > However, the spec does not define how a stream established using
> > PUSH_PROMISE can assign the priority for a stream, nor does the spec
> > discuss whether the notion of stream priority applies to push streams.
> >
> > The spec currently states that PUSH_PROMISE is followed later on by a
> > HEADERS frame.
> >
> > If priority applies to push streams, then we need to add that priority
> > can be assigned by allowing the use of a HEADERS+PRIORITY frame.
> > Otherwise, we need to clarify the spec text to say that push streams
> > have no priority.
> >
>
>