Re: Nice

[William Chan (陈智昌) <[e-mail]>]

Quick thoughts/questions:
* Do you expect browsers to set this at all? It's not obvious to me how my
browser would use this, so I probably wouldn't bother with it in my browser.
* It seems like for your intended use, the priority level is not just an
opaque level but would carry semantic meaning. If that's the case, I
suggest renaming the header accordingly to indicate the appropriate
semantic axis.
* Can you give an example of where this would be used in an open,
interoperable manner? I'd like to understand the use cases that motivate
introducing prioritization semantics at a protocol level rather than an out
of band mechanism (e.g. intermediaries might be coded to understand that
different URL endpoints have certain priority levels).


On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On a different end of the spectrum that we're used to operating in for
> HTTP/2.0, this is a small proposal for a header that advises
> intermediaries about the relative (un)priority of requests.
>
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-http-nice-00
>
> This is probably most useful for constrained servers (I've put core on
> BCC).
>
> --Martin
>
> p.s., The title isn't a value judgement, it's a nod to the unix
> utility (thanks to Richard Barnes for pointing this out).
>
>