Re: HTTP Priority - proposal to support headers and frames

Ian Swett <> Tue, 05 May 2020 17:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 262093A0AD4 for <>; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:58:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.252
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.252 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=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GS3HLLZ5npCW for <>; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D39A33A0B39 for <>; Tue, 5 May 2020 10:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jW1nE-0008Qv-JY for; Tue, 05 May 2020 17:55:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 05 May 2020 17:55:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jW1nD-0008QH-TL for; Tue, 05 May 2020 17:55:43 +0000
Received: from ([2a00:1450:4864:20::429]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jW1nC-0002CH-3K for; Tue, 05 May 2020 17:55:43 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id x17so3821355wrt.5 for <>; Tue, 05 May 2020 10:55:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UF01IwPaaibH3XmIaM3Ch/qfTcMn5eKAyGk3M1Q9rD4=; b=JKFYlFnh6jUcUADYGXPjEIbfVzNGqNGcsuqTZ97j9xwD5BaBKJgE1onct9JmTZSw3S WpfU1mDv9PNaF+ruKkK2No5R0LEZTa1pWElvtbwUYlJ0LTAD3W4mZT/owSPVuHWqAEZI VmOL9EYrBfXt6IQonynEAqvETwPTYw0arXQdeIAEJqM40DoJOsmW9EXo+C7XIYPoLhRS 8UGjCGFfyiqzvMc/5wKc6Xj3wPox+sZvGpceDupNhJ4W4KEJliJWJvb6185BFLP3xFBq rIqLVG4pJ2zeA16KXlNFQYS6jaU8a/QfdBiosfsim28n5eg/BCAx9iXN1Ria4qwoUeKx OJiw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UF01IwPaaibH3XmIaM3Ch/qfTcMn5eKAyGk3M1Q9rD4=; b=kbkQte4irqtvPi16pfD8PKZ5KuZ4amw+XEIevLO3pEO+HzFYMbbV9pt3kZoR+5pDFf 2/yhoIUpLbQOv46e5c1UsCo3JT+7KKLv9mZQd2XmWQhqdXcH+UojUlegIt0zzrfANLpk uLV408JScPBmDGjWUaQPWBe5L3BypdEZEL551a7G3SK8RfTJ5BHtPMHEBQK6ms3U3XDd qH1m7Cm8W4kqe/XxT0LpvP+qK26uwitP30h+ZJ9Ymf3q9lA7TcfJxCaSYE87ZsPBmg6b bm23Bv+gy8bZM/tkdPbiBN4WcJ8vN6AnsSFpnrEBxVsORcrvuHGiDs3C+nMA23p8pwIy ZI+g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PubiLnNnp6iGVslUgyt1Y4dR5jDPt9ukLsmLuolonFerR6Od+mXo alQIkoJdfOmwUD9uBPhyZcwDVir8VY4nffyHcUJfsajM4r8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypKvwkiwXuOFN2nqLZuMhb6PteGKGaHwPeO8mkHmbaAOI6T4PUCpIVnE/nIesMTuGsb19XHYff2cPzhnKuYCvSs=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6a92:: with SMTP id s18mr4621176wru.50.1588701329337; Tue, 05 May 2020 10:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ian Swett <>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2020 13:55:16 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Lucas Pardue <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006444fd05a4ea5a4f"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::429;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-19.6
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1jW1nC-0002CH-3K 77407ef023b886a628da5a26f85eabbe
Subject: Re: HTTP Priority - proposal to support headers and frames
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/37566
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

I support this clarification and supporting both and documenting their
properties is the right way forward.

This clarifies/enables some use cases we were having trouble with, such as
allowing a proxy to both indicate the original request priority to an
origin(via the header) as well as prioritize requests within a multiplexed
proxy to origin connection(via the PRIORITY_UPDATE frame).

Thanks for moving this draft forward.

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 12:07 PM Lucas Pardue <>

> Hello WG,
> If you recall, in March we published draft-ietf-http-priority-00, which
> fixed a few issues that we gave an overview on the mailing list [1].
> One of the remaining issues is concerned about the use of headers vs
> frames. Tracking the range of different threads, the answer seems to having
> an ability to use either.
> PR 1167 is a proposal that tweaks the PRIORITY_UPDATE frame in a few ways.
> The most interesting tweak is to make it more explicit that the frame can
> be used to signal the initial priority of a request [2], this frame can
> only be sent on stream 0 / control stream. This reflects my understanding
> of how Chrome is using the PRIORITY_UPDATE frame today.
> This proposal avoids sending a new priority frame on the request stream.
> Doing that adds some complication for H2. Further, H3 would have to deal
> with the possibility of out-of-order delivery anyway, so having another
> frame does not help it.
> We welcome comments on the issue, the PR or in this thread.
> Cheers
> Lucas
> [1] -
> [2] -