Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on control stream referencing unopened request stream (#2502)

[Mike Bishop <[e-mail]>]

To be clear, I'm not advocating for a more complicated scheme than what we have now -- I think that your implementation sounds very reasonable.  The issue as filed, however, describes that implementing that way creates (hopefully brief) misprioritizations before consistency is achieved:  when something has `implicitly_initialized` set, what priority is given to it, or more relevantly, to its children?  I'm arguing that solving these misprioritizations is more complex than suggested.

I think our choices are:

- Live with the misprioritizations -- what we have is fine
- Block processing of priority instructions entirely when an uncreated stream is encountered as a dependency -- better to delay updates than get things wrong
- Totally replace the priority scheme before RFC

I continue to believe the latter is probably out of both scope and time for this working group, unless HTTPbis directs us otherwise.

The discussion of moving to more unidirectional stream types is largely orthogonal to this choice; I'm going to suggest we take it to a separate issue and decide that independently.

-- 
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/issues/2502#issuecomment-490545898