Nice to have guidance (was: Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent)

Lucas Pardue <> Tue, 21 July 2020 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FD43A0E03 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.019
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.019 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=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qJmRK898ypD2 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:23:13 -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 892A03A0E02 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jxws3-0006lF-OE for; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:20:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:20:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jxws1-0006k3-7V for; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:20:05 +0000
Received: from ([2a00:1450:4864:20::433]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1jxwrz-0002jg-LG for; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:20:05 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id y3so4761771wrl.4 for <>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:20:03 -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=gD0ljhw2YF4UtSrz7CBdobaze5nA4YPdl0sBiOdpVww=; b=sqlyd3+2dcJmeJw4jHW1OVeH8BW5adb2F5GGU0inrnXPCggl7Nz8jT+IdnViwueF2g L9RYxW/jPRuO55NFmnpMMAmwnKZOf1JQeIKguyhZB7RzCfZ10oiHxwxuU78WtyVz95FK jv7+nrjlMxLp7VZP4zMmz4w/ndyinlVGgJ6IoNhHWNxph+hglD6yVlc8/kpye29SAi4i ZRDo7Mo1d9baTgLqJ8ZcJjanKtrewSzYfLuDlQRJVMMk7GYvyBXetyNTOT3Gq+8b1UXF 1dguwOSh8vBUQnhf7U0ZosXB2f3Ue7UBs5OUvMwRiTFH3PvboYih0mn1dcR7GQ69stdd tshQ==
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=gD0ljhw2YF4UtSrz7CBdobaze5nA4YPdl0sBiOdpVww=; b=Qz74BrVvn0BaOY4k/rsMVdXoY/MhpFjRJEFBjDe2/cNrOhRKJQPY1Y/+x5Xo4KRzs9 Z8Pmnicg+FFSQiU0A7BOZj9WebPWFYRbcituluiYR3bladMuTA2h0/H5BlIe6wrdEjwz FMm/nsDRi7MOEr35OX5Lxo8DxlMl2ZTJ3Dxyy2vkqOkhQ5wE73diBqsrueBWXMIvMTyf g5m/u+2SZg8fo3Rrh0nWgsOli57naXgKoUqN0cjDWjt0WdSsdXX+fCqY26PvDZM1Xaz7 Xi6WaRwkp5785IlCW3WDZzwTQ1g5QhkKAveBas3xm7Dgyj+2k3/GAop/ztxaPbBSdK6X O00A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532KPNNxnAfDRKh+GeK6rPZ3aqPmI/zvA7i0VSTzOeNK3MVFzosN l4rLW1X9P2Ko1ErmB+A17I76yeen9BjvZO5iNjbYiqyr
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwy//6JiaxvDU75K8xziX3yehikGHO+/wRByle8JuKtr6m8gs6Gopd1UlEDu9P+FiSsuNMMzQMA8DwGo0CA8E8=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:480b:: with SMTP id l11mr6506044wrq.85.1595355592438; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:19:41 +0100
Message-ID: <>
To: Eric Kinnear <>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000060b7bb05aaf7ab0c"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::433;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1jxwrz-0002jg-LG 1b51272fcb5534244b834d4fd07dcb3c
Subject: Nice to have guidance (was: Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/37902
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Hi Eric,

Just responding to your side note

On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:56 PM Eric Kinnear <> wrote:

> Side note:
> For the document as a whole, we’ve gotten some feedback internally that it
> would be really nice if there were some (minimal, recommendation only)
> guidance as to how to respond to the priority signals when received. This
> wouldn’t be restrictive, as we’re really excited to experiment here and see
> what awesome results we can achieve, but having a baseline of “implement
> this as written and you’ll do *okay” *might be worth considering to
> increase the likelihood that we have a large group of generally-performant
> implementations.
> An example here would be if two requests of the same urgency arrive
> back-to-back, the first with the incremental bit set and the second
> without. What gets sent when? What do you do next if a third request
> arrives with the incremental bit also set before the first is complete?
> There are lots and lots of permutations, but a general approach of handling
> new items coming in is something that I think we’ve all been imagining
> during discussions, but we haven’t really written it down explicitly.
> Internally, as we discussed with some folks new to the topic, we discovered
> that our imaginations of what to do in cases like these didn’t actually
> align as well as we thought.

Thanks for your feedback. I think this is orthogonal to the
reprioritization issue so I've created to capture your
comments. I think this might have some cross over with so if you coud take
at look at those and add anything more to them it would be appreciated.