Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] allow PRIORITY frames referring to placeholders exceeding `SETTING_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS` (#2761)

[Kazuho Oku <[e-mail]>]

@ghedo 
> TBH at this point I'd rather spend time exploring the discussion about limiting or even removing placeholders as we talked about in London (including talking with HTTPbis) rather than try to hack around all of these problems.

It is my view that we should continue refining the prioritization scheme of HTTP/3, though I would not argue for suppressing any other discussion.

The concern of redesigning the prioritization scheme is that the standardization process might get delayed. We do not have a working group consensus on what the goal of the design would be. Compared to that, making changes to lessen the divergence from the prioritization scheme of HTTP/2 _is_ in line with the charter, it is a goal that does not move, and we know how to reintroduce the exclusive bit (see #2754). This PR is a small change that we _might_ adopt alongside other changes that lessen the divergence.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2761#issuecomment-498509101