Re: Design Issue: PUSH_PROMISE and Stream Priority

[Roberto Peon <[e-mail]>]

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" <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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.
> >
>
>