Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization)

Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org> Fri, 19 June 2020 22:55 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 59C683A0F16 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org
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 X8SI0wGjPXqu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
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 D94CF3A0A90 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:55:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jmPrH-0003oC-DQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:51:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:51:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jmPrH-0003oC-DQ@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1jmPrC-0003nR-EZ for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:51:34 +0000
Received: from mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2a]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <tombergan@chromium.org>) id 1jmPrA-0001Tt-Sf for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 22:51:34 +0000
Received: by mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com with SMTP id y45so2212424ooi.8 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:51:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h+eePxM57JihVXJLoCOxw0JvVk3HXv5NrcvOv+hhq+I=; b=V7AY40LfmbjZ9Klcp/KrdnDaIKZtJMIXDS6UJwGzjKs+LqQV1nBKHryZU4ezPkVuJQ en1Biyw8uZoCrOJxIvKJfDsQ+bFFqGzfrbXV6ql4m72FRuBkPNdfOhVrI23C1pXnyyKt fNYkBJGJkO42k32G/YlsE9hqtW63NM1TWBFgw=
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=h+eePxM57JihVXJLoCOxw0JvVk3HXv5NrcvOv+hhq+I=; b=XQPEIRTnRA5Fct9jipWJ28WKmAc98UuEKUK7v6WtATnsMPfVSFI0XmMZsrKHYy4Wox DFl/+8lTHZERi1JDFlBc3kEeuK2M2B9LX6J6l0qM/hhnqVh5T/RrR980B+Lnf6otxhZ0 /F797BDGyIUQ7TYDhCtcqZfYH3WDVVhqPIK/fTsJ7Thk1AWTI48EEDTwnXD7+tPkwBBk 9w5mQq50ApFiW/VgFsmd6Z6y9sN2hvXInmLZbx9gZPv1favliCweLN9sIKNK5nL4fAo7 eeBfSfgCydrb56Y02lLiXoqk4FUPTEFnCE6M/IjdVPMAGpWGj+iG/p4NyX3QY23ZdlZu M+0Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533QPmm3Szj9B2TuI3N027xL3p7fKvRAqdE9N4d8vfLkyoU1hMlI twCusoO2Q2/qgvU2PfOfB5MRAH4heto=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw4BqAVK7hKSBZi36VBD3h7Du4yivZJ+z7ow8Q/xkHwcFbKQ1FG9Yu6xGubZKVnDBqV13PIXw==
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:b202:: with SMTP id d2mr5167073ooo.92.1592607081412; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:51:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-f174.google.com (mail-oi1-f174.google.com. [209.85.167.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v132sm1576231oif.6.2020.06.19.15.51.20 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-f174.google.com with SMTP id i74so9875182oib.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:51:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1c9:: with SMTP id x9mr5005610oic.16.1592607079823; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALGR9obRjBSADN1KtKF6jvFVzNS1+JzaS0D0kCVKHKkd4sn+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <459C86F8-A989-4EF4-84DC-3568FF594F36@apple.com> <CANatvzwSpSHd7kZD-4tyMGkBJDdCBi6r_pLBvnaT8rrQy6SBHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACMu3treK0m2mbpw9FebOjOcEed0bW-DbLbryHJH1DWAHoz+9g@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZgE7ZfXdoYdUh9LUYC1fi8fMUyyTpvmV3GF7Z6Oxgg1g@mail.gmail.com> <20200609144428.GC22180@lubuntu> <CAJV+MGyuhxx=P6kZKktuREeq5pipZjxmwWP4jE_Sxhj_+krU2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzx_eg84V7UefOtSF+NHGHnTg7h-9n5bsRZRXxBqsaOkfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEip6+7AunFsD=6qM5rsgrTfg6bRctOMu1gOe-KVjAW7Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzyv03VH9=+J=M2yY0EwCXp7HMWsXYaXOE=WYGDKBHdaVA@mail.gmail.com> <2C53D8AF-EFA8-42A3-9666-955A054468DB@greenbytes.de> <CACj=BEic2qzMXEfcsKS9CYnowChc-kMRjH66d3uKs+pqTz9Fug@mail.gmail.com> <4E0E8032-A903-46A2-A131-F1F4DE3CC037@greenbytes.de> <CACj=BEjOC-8S38U36Jw+Yb7yH_BZjxBkeLE6dLWH=8VMyBW80Q@mail.gmail.com> <ECF2C350-5D53-4E3B-9AAC-2F7E3FD4B528@greenbytes.de> <CACj=BEh53ZWj1UV6tNDaWPiuHbmbVmkYimu_rdYcYm06dZJAAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGzesbFRZFGK5SUM70HJrx3fdJ8AAGGqmwqDQhrL3eFmUw@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEiVPfOPGPuSu-tx5AovWwvTEwjCTqEooMq2muEteHZLAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGyrKyhamN3WY+HE1i_0hKWQo6kuLe-6hO53YMrHPbto=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAM37g06T_U+Th83D7sH3S_LB-b_9TcaX5b9nDSFE8Z-x5U+c9A@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwEr97ec5h=YOZopFt2ou+vabthD+YMRwh0aESKy2jkkA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM37g05x7hZ=AfAicFHmPBxtz4VJhH14cCF2MKcRpfvq4_y1Cw@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZdQnmdVo5hhA68r6CtRtDZUCRpBfbZjqQy=ggv9xmfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+3+x5HRMOD_XRUpGRqFY=pttj=izswzSLdSDKuKXhAPCx6wfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9obh6GmU2nToNwq1XWMJ9JG6VpyE-sg7RTjeL3fETJk-VQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9obh6GmU2nToNwq1XWMJ9JG6VpyE-sg7RTjeL3fETJk-VQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 15:51:08 -0700
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CA+3+x5F+DYo-XUH_F+Nqn1sOTB2Gh+WjJYbH++T6x6eL2LWL2g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+3+x5F+DYo-XUH_F+Nqn1sOTB2Gh+WjJYbH++T6x6eL2LWL2g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000042e2c505a877bb2b"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2a; envelope-from=tombergan@chromium.org; helo=mail-oo1-xc2a.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1jmPrA-0001Tt-Sf 2ceeff464e630e249ed9a8e085abbd6e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CA+3+x5F+DYo-XUH_F+Nqn1sOTB2Gh+WjJYbH++T6x6eL2LWL2g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37803
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>

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:44 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
wrote:

> That's a fair opinion too. Have you any thoughts about server push
> reprioritization being a motivating factor for maintaining the feature?
>

The way I think of it is that reprioritzation can turn bad pushes into
neutral pushes, but it can't turn bad or neutral pushes into good pushes. I
validated the bad -> neutral hypothesis in a contrived / toy HTTP/2 sandbox
a few years ago. What's missing is a really convincing case where push is a
win (many good pushes). Despite a lot of looking, the only real-world case
I've found is that paper from Akamai a few years back.

I think my last email was too strong w.r.t. your above question. I don't
think we should decide the push question now and I don't think
reprioritzation alone is a motivating factor to maintain push. All I meant
to say is: I believe that reprioritization is helpful for push, assuming we
keep both.