Re: Design Issue: PUSH_PROMISE and Stream Priority

Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 15:22 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 629D621F99D2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:22:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 KKOU4d38lK8M for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA53C21F99D1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:22:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UVkSr-0000Xm-IT for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:21:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:21:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UVkSr-0000Xm-IT@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1UVkSj-0000WF-V2 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:21:25 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1UVkSj-0005Pe-1I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 15:21:25 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k3so4085164oag.19 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Cff1/5fSwWYSxwTtD+5cEGglIGBGp5Lw/Amqsn0dNPU=; b=Fg2QUAHMDdTPYqyBESzZSpspUrCiayS2/xEiEsOmwXbzOqeEEAS8lGnZ7Q9XG/66bA +6DwlqQN68JXOssOVqtZH4r91eSaVVHj4FCXwRxvXo+zWmxW4aKFz5bJ5yrKTueVR/wy McnfAe7fd2w1VHe8wQip9RVifa0/s1XwWcH4wb8pnEK/wKz0xlVwJY+fUOLWDt9NELX4 DTGsUGIjRhGTpb2emo0/XkUn3/XoqWVEi5/bUJPrP5gCKpZgGEkicivuOrkQuwbT0O3s LhM7hAaGn3qN2GXAnPGkcO36WJ+Mxil38pPs+bj/Z8Hhx1KmqDuRw+ZB8Eg85TB0DB8d OyZQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.171.99 with SMTP id at3mr18001875obc.25.1366989659201; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: patrick.ducksong@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.34.132 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYgvC_EbEkhMFsH_KuK3U5O=csGAFKmdw1XVn6P6R8h0pw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7Rbf_hZ036vUs4LNTrGQ91kft2_97aV-9Gi2KVJnUJphbNA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUBEvDtNQM8G5vyfyqRz4tQ8su9+14gMTdaXhzY2cq+Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdxCcs+J3nhFE6nusAsZLwSG=WMEhHZK0FZjgQQVveHAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgvC_EbEkhMFsH_KuK3U5O=csGAFKmdw1XVn6P6R8h0pw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:20:59 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ZyVyMkCmt3shZSceWw8XNLHPdKE
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrgc2Wq=YYHXyeNqQo9WGBE0rBHj9NPw8w2ZQsF8jisUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, James Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8ff1cf860c693204db4515dd
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=patrick.ducksong@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.705, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UVkSj-0005Pe-1I 10d100e67fc7e6e59e9d10276652ab73
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: PUSH_PROMISE and Stream Priority
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNrgc2Wq=YYHXyeNqQo9WGBE0rBHj9NPw8w2ZQsF8jisUA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17605
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>

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 10:29 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

>  A reprioritization frame would enable the client to send advisory
> priorities here to better inform the server. And I would recommend we allow
> clients to do so.
>
>
+1. For the stage we are at now, let's just do that.