search

kazuho / draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority

Other
6 stars 4 forks source link

Split tweaking #85

Closed LPardue closed 4 years ago

LPardue commented 4 years ago

This builds in top of #80 to implement the tweaks I had in mind. @ianswett PTAL. Since it is getting close to deadline, if this is too contentious we might need to hold it back until next time.

LPardue commented 4 years ago

So after juggling the examples (because I agree with Kazuho about concrete examples) the "split" isn't really a split. I think we probably want to follow up in a 3-way discussion to see what exactly we are trying to achieve and see if it makes sense to land a change in an 04 draft at a later date.

ianswett commented 4 years ago

A 3 way discussion sounds good to me. I'll note that we have extensibility in the form of negotiation via SETTINGS, so I think I'd like a clearer picture of what types of changes should use SETTINGS and what should use another field in the structured header.

My thinking was that we should have a SETTINGS codepoint for the design in this draft(urgency and progressive) and if one wanted to have a scheme that used urgency and some to be defined field, that would be a separate codepoint.

LPardue commented 4 years ago

So a way to use structured headers encoded parameters but without the mandate to use urgency and progressive parameters (or imply behaviour from their absence)

LPardue commented 4 years ago

Closing "split"-related candidate changes because they have rotted. We may chose to address the goal of these changes, and we may chose to restructure the document, and we may chose to do both of those things together; but I don't think this PR helps.