search

kazuho / draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority

Other
6 stars 4 forks source link

[negotiation] Do we need an identifier for H2 prioritization scheme? #67

Closed kazuho closed 4 years ago

kazuho commented 4 years ago

(We can defer this issue post IETF 106 deadline, but am raising it anyways).

58 assigns an identifier for the H2's default prioritization scheme defined in RFC 7540 to be deprecated.

I wonder if we need it. We could simply say that for H2, the absence of SETTINGS_PRIORITIES indicates the use of the deprecated prioritization scheme.

That simplifies the design as well as better reflecting the nature of "deprecation", as it essentially forbids any new stack (that uses SETTING_PRIORITIES) from using the deprecated scheme.

kazuho commented 4 years ago

Relates to #65.

kazuho commented 4 years ago

FWIW I think I'm tempted to not do this after the I-D cutoff of IETF 106, as it might cause other issues.

ianswett commented 4 years ago

I think this was fixed in #81?

LPardue commented 4 years ago

I think kazuhos question was more philosophical. We do have a value (I.e. we define a codepoint) but IIUC this issue is about whether that is truly required by the design.

LPardue commented 4 years ago

I believe the plan to go back to simpler scheme (#100) will address this issue. There this should be resolved by the PR that resolves #100.

LPardue commented 4 years ago

closing this because #100 was addressed. Please reopen if you feel the need to do so.