IETF Logo Mail Archive

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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email