Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Wed, 31 July 2019 06:11 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 D352F120025 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 4Vj1ei4UlZD0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [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 ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91139120019 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 23:11:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hshnI-00019q-VK for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 06:09:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 06:09:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hshnI-00019q-VK@frink.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1hshnF-0000vQ-O1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 06:08:57 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1hshnE-0003Ls-5r for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 06:08:57 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x6V68Ran011839; Wed, 31 Jul 2019 08:08:27 +0200
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 08:08:27 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20190731060827.GA11836@1wt.eu>
References: <CALjsk164zz+nDy5ZmOhvCscBQrBNMKTW0fz7Zxy=KtVx+ktz+Q@mail.gmail.com> <20190726031912.GB29509@1wt.eu> <CALGR9oZ7CyJ3LD4rmJn+4=E83ad3qc93Nc82-uJMXjiRL+NQjA@mail.gmail.com> <20190726052449.GD29509@1wt.eu> <CY4PR22MB09838DC9BAEC171E7B37454FDADD0@CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com> <CANatvzy0MsrS_+h9Mx_CDoi5a4WUP+VrX6tf9Q5zgvP5esmDAA@mail.gmail.com> <20190730035111.GA2037@1wt.eu> <CY4PR22MB0983837CF1566E4B5E6256E4DADC0@CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR22MB0983837CF1566E4B5E6256E4DADC0@CY4PR22MB0983.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.096, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1hshnE-0003Ls-5r 1039533df6ded0cfb58af34abbf81f63
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20190731060827.GA11836@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36881
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>

Hi Mike,

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 02:34:49PM +0000, Mike Bishop wrote:
> Personal opinion, not backed by any browser stack:  Browsers have seen some
> benefits from the current prioritization scheme when implemented by both
> server and client.  If you are able to implement it, you'll likely improve
> your performance with browsers that currently send priority information.
> When there's a new scheme, there will likely be some negotiation mechanism to
> determine what the peers support.  I doubt that the client with existing
> implementations will quickly rip them out; your work would continue to be
> leveraged while the replacement is being developed and by older browsers in
> the future.

That was indeed the sense of my question. Since I'm seeing some discussion
around priorities, I was wondering if there's a general consensus around
dropping the existing scheme or that it's often counter-effective. I'm not
worried about doing it just for a few years, I was worried of doing it for
nothing :-)

Thanks!
Willy