Prioritizing HTTP DATAGRAMs
Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Tue, 22 June 2021 13:46 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 D90053A25DC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.75 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 UmCjuSakPggG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:46:52 -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 14B0B3A25D6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1lvgft-0002Ns-LN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:42:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:42:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1lvgft-0002Ns-LN@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 <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1lvgeW-0001Ss-2g for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:41:25 +0000
Received: from mail-ed1-f45.google.com ([209.85.208.45]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1lvgeP-0000BY-C0 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 13:41:17 +0000
Received: by mail-ed1-f45.google.com with SMTP id i24so13026491edx.4 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YyxaiH0Zf0b/keMzHCY6AsH7wJ3FnkXmSBExeui1gzQ=; b=j3I4lS6q2KHX+c4Qd5GrtqWtfs+xGPvAR84BtvRfKZstNiLyRqLcnEv6DMrf6p1pxb Apji4TiMfX1FzX+dsRVCbFxhP+eMYPPuCkRSpvqzwqMnzKvYKCPtgsmY/eRa3Fes0eYf 9nVnbNoBNEAf1Zc4Q/F9dzR7ZYo8uG722HpeyllXmPBYMGvoowYCv7vhaCJKhJhJZvaR 7MJ5rAPf3YC5OCdmSDCBeTV0y9UEZRQ7H43bZ0eLM1tUxE9Y/QWk0d1d7N59Wv+/SYd3 GWgn6G4RtP0nxkOpp9c1eA+Yk41r9eC24tBxYfLTqMcFleHDn/V6pwSkn62ecNHjjnjc gUmA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=YyxaiH0Zf0b/keMzHCY6AsH7wJ3FnkXmSBExeui1gzQ=; b=nP77CkAwMzSzUNm2gRl0ZT/3KOBe4VMalhKglfro7czl9c8OzZtuOGVfFWkDNJ4rHr 1yK5YrmkB8bSR+tRR5G+GC6JJ1ugFc/1aH5N7dFihlQqxVr4StBbDHcdTboZToYm8uuX vk26KdoyBuvkAsHjOidCSO+5cTnrK352Sw92V3bHmh0kJHC7dUY6DbgwM/9dBQEKUBv5 QCtDb5K4zB39mJiSMGDwDF6ICan6OvwbFXk1dDS3taSDFoSHz9T/WJca5OjAPAOcle0V 4KYRWOBZXGTITmvkG6aIdl2Tv7P1FuxXaXYHh9gaet87uxl4LuWbID+B41ljG5BDfDJ7 Fwhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Dlst5PC1NUs45VjcxAjFe5efBtg4QIQq8BBG5qjpORdlj6cvg G9FIZKS6gEUCB7PWZ8Do3gnh8wUFUzVQMPkm0+FSDVFxIbw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzvgckJrJ33Gb+9JsQdWx2jydyueGUUC3fudniGITkFcTWx2qT3XtbXofV93WZgoHUAgCGK2jIeTMq9MYAKMZg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:31a5:: with SMTP id dj5mr5088542edb.229.1624369201399; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 06:40:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2021 14:39:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9ob=3CywgYvLJpSba6xCGwDEBzdJbuco28BMk9ayMcFe6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, MASQUE <masque@ietf.org>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000003bc9ec05c55aed77"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.208.45; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-ed1-f45.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com domain=gmail.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1lvgeP-0000BY-C0 80021b36bf3bef4a03f580e4c0ec7181
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Prioritizing HTTP DATAGRAMs
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9ob=3CywgYvLJpSba6xCGwDEBzdJbuco28BMk9ayMcFe6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/38929
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>
Hello HTTP and MASQUE, Over the last couple of months, the question about prioritization with respect to HTTP DATAGRAMs has come up first in MASQUE issue # 46 [1] and then HTTP issue #1550 [2], which was also discussed during the recent HTTP interim. Extensible priorities is pretty far along it's journey, which has so far been focused on HTTP message content (and CONNECT tunnel data, see PR #1544 [3]). The scheme fulfills the needs of the base HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 specifications, and so far hasn't considered extensions. Extensible priorities acts as a replacement for HTTP/2's prioritization scheme, while being the only known scheme defined for HTTP/3. However, there is nothing to prevent alternate schemes being defined or used in the future (although we hope the need for that can be avoided by the extensibility here). Endpoints that send DATAGRAM flows concurrently with other flows or streams have to make scheduling decisions. Therefore, the question about how to prioritize them, and to communicate that via signals, is a good one. However, currently the editors of draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram and draft-ietf-httpbis-priority (disclosure: I am co-editor on both) feel that linking these two drafts directly is not the best approach for either. On draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram issue #46 [1], we resolved the discussion by adding text to say that prioritization of HTTP/3 datagrams is not defined by the document. For draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram issue #1550 [2], the proposed resolution is PR #1559 [4]. The PR adds a clear statement that the document is focused on HTTP content and CONNECT tunnel data. It also makes clear that extensions like DATAGRAM can also use the scheme but punts that to their court. Kazuho and I are seeking some feedback for PR #1559 [4] before landing it. We appreciate that this leaves a gap for DATAGRAM priorities, especially since DATAGRAM says nothing. But the thought process is that another Internet-Draft could fill this gap. This would create an indirect relationship that would allow documents to progress independently. I'm planning to start a draft soon and have it ready by IETF 111. Which WG it should belong to is probably another matter for debate. Cheers Lucas Wearing co-editor hat for HTTP/3 DATAGRAM and Extensible priorities [1] https://github.com/ietf-wg-masque/draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram/issues/46 [2] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1550 [3] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1544 [4] https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/pull/1559
- Prioritizing HTTP DATAGRAMs Lucas Pardue
- Re: [Masque] Prioritizing HTTP DATAGRAMs Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re: [Masque] Pr… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Prioritizing HTTP DATAGRAMs David Schinazi
- Re: Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re: [Masque… Samuel Hurst
- Re: Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re: [Masque… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re: [Masque… Patrick Meenan
- Re: Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re: [Masque… Roberto Peon
- Re: [Masque] Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [Masque] Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [Masque] Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Prioritizing HTTP DATAGRAMs Lucas Pardue