Re: HTTP/2 Priority <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17>

Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk> Sat, 07 March 2015 17:42 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ietf.org@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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031151A0111 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:42:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.142
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.142 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id L-wzL-hdV5zV for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:42:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99EE61A00F3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Mar 2015 09:42:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1YUIgE-0007Ql-Uv for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:38:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:38:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1YUIgE-0007Ql-Uv@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1YUIg8-0007Pv-CQ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:38:20 +0000
Received: from mailex.mailcore.me ([94.136.40.61]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1YUIg7-0006zj-9k for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:38:20 +0000
Received: from dab-hlw1-h-1-5.dab.02.net ([82.132.233.233] helo=[10.8.61.219]) by smtp04.mailcore.me with esmtpa (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>) id 1YUIfk-0003cO-Hd; Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:37:56 +0000
References: <201503061918.t26JIIKP015110@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <201503061918.t26JIIKP015110@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0A76CFE1-0651-463F-B540-D9E99BC95945@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Cc: "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B466)
From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2015 17:37:51 +0000
To: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
X-Mailcore-Auth: 9600544
X-Mailcore-Domain: 172912
Received-SPF: none client-ip=94.136.40.61; envelope-from=ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk; helo=mailex.mailcore.me
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.758, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.614, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1YUIg7-0006zj-9k f491b9dfe10f17072e27e0e8762351d8
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 Priority <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17>
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0A76CFE1-0651-463F-B540-D9E99BC95945@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/28910
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>

Bob,


> On 6 Mar 2015, at 19:18, Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com> wrote:
> 
> This follows up my own post, 'cos I forgot one point...
> 
>> Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:40:54 +0000
>> From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
>> ===Priority===
> 
> I believe HTTP/2 was intended to be retrofittable to an HTTP/1.1 implementation. I think that will largely be true, except it seems an API is needed to drive stream priorities from script logic. But I don't see any mention of an API in the spec tho.
> 
> Explanation: Presumably something has to determine the dependencies between all the streams and assign the priority values. This might either be manual, automated, or a hybrid. Assuming automated, that means something at the HTTP/2 layer needs to parse all the content and analyse its dependencies. A Web developer is unlikely to be able to precalculate priorities, except for simple static content. In general, script interactions with the client will alter the priorities. So APIs to set priorities will have to be included in scripting languages, and developers will have to write to these new APIs.
> 
> So I think this means that HTTP/1.x content will rarely 'just work' over HTTP/2. 

Priority is optional in HTTP/2 and doesn't exist in HTTP/1.x so I'm not sure what makes you think HTTP/1.x content will rarely "just work". It will work just fine. 

Ben