Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt

Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 18:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 E947F3A091C for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:20:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oStleStME6zk for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:20:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DF6A3A0919 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 10:20:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1j9v4N-0005St-4y for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:18:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:18:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j9v4N-0005St-4y@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ianswett@google.com>) id 1j9v4F-0005Mx-Vk for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:17:55 +0000
Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ianswett@google.com>) id 1j9v4E-0000yH-7y for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 18:17:55 +0000
Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id g83so6786526wme.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 10:17:53 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=muaMWE6u6fOiPSQ8NTI76iWjbmjfmWrIPYlD0r1ZRJQ=; b=jOzqL8tTWIIY92r2PLbraz2V8ES7eR0ZBET4ow0B/N33odN4YhcPeBnXnkUPmLsSnx DsncPCzVC2Hd7vgIYpENtrSfg5EnlkMf9HjjkqhSJ0tFk2jSkOFkniNwDaQiPtKvce63 035i9qV5Ud521QYa/zkkemMFXBNboWimub74DXvvBEMtRKG6viGUki7iJpiQpY567Li9 w0BIqRWScAfSk7ug1syB37DtxX366m+FFSCNlcd8mufABe4m3R8VLEn3K7PSBgHuVhxr iA7fsItZTfzrmOPA1aSsPDfxMF5W0En95+8JTN/plnhEQAbROywIDybrSZwixgSZ3eTb IpNA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=muaMWE6u6fOiPSQ8NTI76iWjbmjfmWrIPYlD0r1ZRJQ=; b=DKsM6WQuMvd+1cW4Wr+Z77fL3b4X4ny2QDj9E0FrunaHhWjV/H/v9ZO+rWG4ZBVV2k 2RTuJBIpDR7EwnDYQic++JDtmhMVCd12BL6HzWp6VRJX4KP7xMVL1W4G3VSKcS46k71W +6m+uzwf4sOH8e5isL/0xvdaQqAbSC/hviA0fIiyFtCQhGDs/mUZnJclIZdem+/oCxJ0 tZSlUZV6yFdnMa2vOzSlhrUc7K+kz29GMlfa0Dc2bViAaB81SzjfKmRfpECA/rRf+Vjg SL1GfHwO2Ye1b4aG8sPVcHaReHrltfkdMPRD1oTbiXtAfdC5KDfdaZNSvyM7FPgQWrtM x5yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0/lTHpbfYIJsVSpyTbDfWMh705W2zyZMaQd/oHBahWxjGkJ3LU wGxuzXCXbmLf4YKeFJrbuMY5nz4dqtlRAeYOcU4CFhDb
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsrfO5bnygseCRU/EVH2YXC6Z3S0uWTuvq3TS4A5ac6bFJaMmlff4EhOQGNRg2Q3oRE6I73qAOGeg1gY/e1iwQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:4b0f:: with SMTP id y15mr41648wma.87.1583432261626; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 10:17:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158342819915.14611.53810193547146190@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALGR9obw90VweYQybVHSs=5MYJe8PUMt+adEAppLZ=QVPcKUew@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9obw90VweYQybVHSs=5MYJe8PUMt+adEAppLZ=QVPcKUew@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 13:17:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gO+B92LKDKdcfJwq4SbXjzh7q8qKER=3U7K=MO1VhH4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007b55b005a01f8db7"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::332; envelope-from=ianswett@google.com; helo=mail-wm1-x332.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1j9v4E-0000yH-7y bbf9ba31ed75dd1caa088193b9a4198b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAKcm_gO+B92LKDKdcfJwq4SbXjzh7q8qKER=3U7K=MO1VhH4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37407
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Thanks for updating this draft.

On the point of headers vs frame, based on my experience leading the design
team and the slightly wider scope of use cases that are now on the table,
which includes server-side reprioritization, I see the compromise of having
both a frame and a header as the only way forward which has the ability to
gain consensus.  I also truly believe there are valid use cases for both.

I propose we should own that position and seek to describe the properties
of each clearly.

Thanks, Ian

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:40 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello WGs,
>
> Following adoption of draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04 by HTTPbis, Kazuho
> and I have published draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00 (see forwarded email).
>
> The major change in this draft relates to the urgency levels. Based on
> feedback and discussion, we have kept 8 levels (0-7 in descending order of
> priority) but have minimized the semantics. This allows a common urgency
> range, without being overly prescriptive on client's ability to use the
> range. Furthermore, the text describing how an intermediary might approach
> merging priority signals from client and server implied a weighting toward
> server signals; we have reduced the guidance and highlight that merging
> decision are a local decision.
>
> This draft version contains changes that reflect emerging WG consensus.
> However, the list of open issues is available on Github [1] and we
> encourage continued discussion, notably the debate on using frame vs.
> headers is still unresolved.
>
> Cheers
> Lucas
>
> [1] - https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/priorities
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <intrnet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:09 PM
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
> To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue <
> lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Lucas Pardue and posted to the
> IETF repository.
>
> Name:           draft-ietf-httpbis-priority
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP
> Document date:  2020-03-05
> Group:          httpbis
> Pages:          19
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority
>
>
> Abstract:
>    This document describes a scheme for prioritizing HTTP responses.
>    This scheme expresses the priority of each HTTP response using
>    absolute values, rather than as a relative relationship between a
>    group of HTTP responses.
>
>    This document defines the Priority header field for communicating the
>    initial priority in an HTTP version-independent manner, as well as
>    HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 frames for reprioritizing the responses.  These
>    share a common format structure that is designed to provide future
>    extensibility.
>
>
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
> submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> The IETF Secretariat
>
>
>