Re: Design Issue: PUSH_PROMISE and Stream Priority

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 26 April 2013 18:36 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 4F64C21F9742 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:36:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.942
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.942 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.657, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 F-kuv6IMpBCH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C125921F9732 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UVnUv-000707-Eg for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:35:53 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:35:53 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UVnUv-000707-Eg@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UVnUq-0006zR-TG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:35:48 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UVnUp-00044f-Qs for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 18:35:48 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id c11so2304144wgh.34 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:35:21 -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=/nGrcvPL2aXVjOqR5og9zQn38N3AWP7IqkIshGQaXNw=; b=0n+I4+NcZMFIjlBsbbv2QcJ8het9QyTXg5aoLe4ku/4JgIM++yB6SFrAeJxRDhMuRr /N73+BeRhUncbDDaPgdi/EmtFivlfwFjo4AlSBVbW9iIWh5Ar53ZcfO/6emrNX1WGB99 YoDrW5eq9XPyeZ+cIm1i2Snte1D35lrzr0tftOPDVWtlboxN2mVAQBVOSmAgu7jsOYgJ kE1gLLkfhS290qGjQQBegcIXaJ9nhfOKp84pCGAGvuqzbzzE8t9kyEUEUaH+MfH7nGKc /0nzPdin7MpG1VjZ9N3ZzyzhVU7oBZIw/9ydCry3WlDdzN1gE4Lo3tBnkXCEPhxBKeKy LixA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.109.227 with SMTP id hv3mr19927775wjb.32.1367001321692; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.33.102 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbcCesHYf8Q-9j22yg9=GGJWUooKKwBbJhBiyALzx3jWnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7Rbf_hZ036vUs4LNTrGQ91kft2_97aV-9Gi2KVJnUJphbNA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUBEvDtNQM8G5vyfyqRz4tQ8su9+14gMTdaXhzY2cq+Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbccA=Zo2NVzJJ-8-G+y2cNt_j8rLr5YVfB_7CVOXLE_JQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnV64vRPcrdYGFcJQGZW_Wud5fKT76_z5BJc0NndsAEGYg@mail.gmail.com> <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E516416AC5@ADELE.crf.canon.fr> <CABP7RbcCesHYf8Q-9j22yg9=GGJWUooKKwBbJhBiyALzx3jWnw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 11:35:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVoc_s+x2Qu5HZz+OwkQaHhnNM57iYCLVH-QQO+g7vH7A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.43; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.682, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UVnUp-00044f-Qs 28cca0ed0e12c71d511a960086c07e80
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: PUSH_PROMISE and Stream Priority
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVoc_s+x2Qu5HZz+OwkQaHhnNM57iYCLVH-QQO+g7vH7A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17615
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 26 April 2013 09:27, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:
> For this there are several possible solutions:
>
>     A. We can simply say PUSH_PROMISE streams have no priority.
>     B. We can say that PUSH_PROMISE streams inherit the priority of
> their parent, client-initiated stream
>     C. We can allow the server to use HEADERS+PRIORITY or a new
> Reprioritization Frame to establish the priority of a pushed stream.

That seems like a fair taxonomy.

A is not possible.  There is no such thing as no priority.  Default
priority, perhaps.  At the point that you have to contend with
choosing between two streams, then you have prioritization.