Priority Placeholders in HTTP/2
draft-bishop-httpbis-priority-placeholder-01
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Mike Bishop | ||
| Last updated | 2018-08-11 (Latest revision 2018-02-07) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
RFC7540 defines HTTP/2, including a method for communicating priorities. Some implementations have begun using closed streams as placeholders when constructing their priority tree, but this has unbounded state commitments and interacts poorly with HTTP/QUIC. This document proposes an extension to the HTTP/2 priority scheme for both protocols.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)