IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Mon, 04 February 2013 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FEC821F8B5E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:48:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.675
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.675 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b6Ot9dkhDgYh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3D921F8B37 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:48:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U2VkL-0002oR-OD for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:46:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:46:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U2VkL-0002oR-OD@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1U2VkB-0002nc-FH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:46:35 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1U2Vk7-0005NW-Cj for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:46:35 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id ta14so7060660obb.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:46:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=+EZ6pVFMxSIK4D59/TO8qWEOil4IwT/jDG25xoHgepI=; b=uJYzo5fzNmNxEWozJrLftmQSvmhREP61kU5D6Y8xJB2jzxuAPDt5oXwES3xR/S3uKo 2RNaD6sjNXIrs/tMPao7Ke6SLtEFO9UVCoDaAGmrSIH/i3tIzlzzgq8qNgcCZfk9ZTqq x3P1JOWOvCdFQbe0MTwMokxFsalMu8C/tfdAAOX4lEMDjFFNtvCbxE7Oo4ZTSkFQ74C7 6dKnoB3M0NqSZdThnSDeMtL72XrZo+7fXL6cLe73u6d62sFD6PbfwB/gHwVUG38W8YDh xqd7UOQWBwLKgWhU53dMHXuhTY4T/OFukF7MnQxIFgwVOT/MmSJPX8ywrsziSVJPImRU ARjA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.32.147 with SMTP id j19mr18083858oei.68.1360021564995; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 15:46:04 -0800 (PST)
Sender: patrick.ducksong@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.132.165 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:46:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYgBWQ-7mqU7FYSCeTVCGGjNWRGRzzgPDCYUZe9UhWedfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA4WUYjiBZpShKKFfHQnixc94aOLrck0oR4ykARB=hF5h8nkfA@mail.gmail.com> <3430.1359961022@critter.freebsd.dk> <510F72CE.8030003@treenet.co.nz> <CDFC6823-BC3E-4F53-A9FA-9F0E7AAF0C12@mnot.net> <510FB175.9030805@treenet.co.nz> <CAK3OfOj6daXXJ+i+rVHnu2abgiL1ceRqaW0+vyQ7pAcW32c4QA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgBWQ-7mqU7FYSCeTVCGGjNWRGRzzgPDCYUZe9UhWedfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 08:46:04 +0900
X-Google-Sender-Auth: YGV0NlLDtK4zORbo8ywpESccdAI
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNrF2MGqFSRQ2s2QMEEiqGxM=WUu5bESdyYe4dKdoQAEjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1f50644b7b804d4eeb226"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=patrick.ducksong@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.711, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U2Vk7-0005NW-Cj cdc08471184efef72b143e38c36080da
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNrF2MGqFSRQ2s2QMEEiqGxM=WUu5bESdyYe4dKdoQAEjg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16364
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:49 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> presentation, I demonstrated how browsers want to do resource request
> prioritization within the HTTP protocol level. Different resources
> have very different prioritization requirements within a page load,
>

 I just wanted to echo that this is a very important point.. the
relationship between css/js and images is the primary example but there are
others.

 >>. Opaque levels where only

> relative priority matters within a "group" is resilient to this
> problem.
>
>
yes.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email