"Oliver, Wesley, Vodacom South Africa (External)" <> Thu, 25 July 2019 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB4012015F for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:47:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.651
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.651 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2YBAnTqR0iWg for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD1391200A4 for <>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 05:47:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hqd8F-0005nx-9d for; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:46:03 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:46:03 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hqd8C-0005m9-L8 for; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:46:00 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hqd89-0004ok-OE for; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:46:00 +0000
Received: from (Not Verified[]) by with Trustwave SEG (v7, 3, 6, 7949) id <B5d39a46c0008>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:45:32 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:45:32 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:45:32 +0200
Received: from ([fe80::802c:a284:2b10:ea9]) by ([fe80::802c:a284:2b10:ea9%20]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 14:45:32 +0200
From: "Oliver, Wesley, Vodacom South Africa (External)" <>
To: Kazuho Oku <>
CC: Ian Swett <>, IETF QUIC WG <>, HTTP Working Group <>
Thread-Index: AQHVQuYRu36Xl5PGREefu/K7uiKeuqbbJlyA
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2019 12:45:31 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, W3C_NW=0.5
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1hqd89-0004ok-OE 8516bee972a2dea24a72c955e8b31409
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/36836
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

One last thing, if the frame is to remain simple for router inspection, then also required Quality of Service byte, to be exposed
At frame level, so AK and NAK different controls mechanism of the transmission, which will throttle and block the transmission in the opersite direction can be prioirized over more general QoS.
NAK AND AK, should have priority over all internet traffic.
So then a frame that is to be transparent should consist at least of

 QoS, priority, Sequence number
in this order from left to right, for the byte order to be good for router
Interpretation for queuing and interlacing of frame traffic.

Kind Regards,

Wesley Oliver

> On 25 Jul 2019, at 14:39, Wesley Oliver <> wrote:
> Hi,
> One other thing to consider with the priority header byte that exists I the frame, is that
> The orchestrator of the priority header values, needs to be able to identify when it can re-use
> A priority header value, to deal with the fact all buffers in route, are required to have been flushed and empty,
> So that there are no duplicate or old state datagrams in route, which can be put ahead of the new information data frame
> Reusing that priority value. May there should be a flush frame, but there is no guarantee, goes sought the same route , so that wouldn’t work.
> A TTL won’t work, because we want to support large buffers.
> So routers, would have to detect sequence frame numbers, being re-cycle for stream-priority pair,
> Then drop all stale packets. This means that each frame sequence number must be increasing even for drop frames, packets.
> Sequence number can only be recycled if, AK has been received for specific sequence number.
> This means that the larger-buffer will be limited respectively by sequence number size 2bytes times data frame payload size,
> Before blocking will be experience and there sender will stall, having to wait for the buffers to be flushed, so it can get an AK from a frame in flight.
> 2^16 * (dataframe payload size) = max buffer size.
> Ideally the sequence number if going to be used, needs to be large to support massive buffers with out AK blocking on the window as in tcp.
> Assuming that window size here is unlimited, which what would be ideal for massive files and streams, were rather can re-read with Direct memory access the data for restransmission of lost packets.
> If don’t have sequence number, which is highly unlikely, the larger priority byte would bee need to avoid collisions for inflight traffic.
> My feeling is that sequence number + priority number should be used and should be larger enough, to support unlimited window size for AK,
> So routers will truly know a frame correct re-transmission ordering.
> Maybe allow MSB of the sequence number or potentially priority frame to extend the size in bytes 1,2,4,8,12,14,16,18,20.
> Ideall look at the total buffer data size, that the sequence number would allow to be transmitted and considered inflight,
> Before blocking would occur.
> Kind Regards,
> Wesley Oliver
>> On 25 Jul 2019, at 08:48, Oliver, Wesley, Vodacom South Africa (External) <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The only thing I could suggest is that you make those priority flags increments of 20,
>> So that if there are changes or minor priority preference per website, then
>> That in between numbers can be used. If there is any new future priority conventions
>> Then just add them in the middle of the 20 group splitting the existing group.
>> Maybe make the field 2 bytes, which allows for future expansion, were there are many files, streams
>> Which require a new priority order.
>> Otherwise one needs to build a priority map, over the deps, converting a high resolution to low resolution.
>> Kind Regards,
>> Wesley Oliver
>>> On 24 Jul 2019, at 19:14, Kazuho Oku <> wrote:
>>> Hi!
>>> Attached are the slides that Lucas and I presented during the side meeting.
>>> Thank you all for the feedback.
>>> 2019年7月9日(火) 21:00 Ian Swett <>rg>:
>>>> There has been quite a bit of discussion of HTTP priorities lately on both the QUIC and HTTP mailing lists, with more to follow.  The plan for IETF in Montreal is as follows:
>>>> Monday: Overview of priorities for 15 minutes in HTTP, with 15 minutes discussion.
>>>> Wednesday: A side meeting will be held from 8:30-9:45am in Van Horne.
>>>> Thursday: I'll summarise the side meeting in Wednesday's HTTP session.
>>>> Thanks, Ian
>>> --
>>> Kazuho Oku
>>> <The Priority Header Field.pdf>
>> This e-mail is classified C2 - Vodacom Restricted - Information to be used inside Vodacom but it may be shared with authorised partners.
>> "This e-mail is sent on the Terms and Conditions that can be accessed by Clicking on this link" 

"This e-mail is sent on the Terms and Conditions that can be accessed by Clicking on this link"