IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 21:58 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 87C723A0CDD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:58:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 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=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 BMT7Pkyk7H8Z for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:58:10 -0800 (PST)
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 B02F23A0BA7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:58:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1j9yRj-0005is-PF for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 21:54:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 21:54:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j9yRj-0005is-PF@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) 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 1j9yRb-0005i5-Cd for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 21:54:15 +0000
Received: from mail-wr1-x431.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::431]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1j9yRZ-0007s9-Sq for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 21:54:15 +0000
Received: by mail-wr1-x431.google.com with SMTP id x7so20736wrr.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 13:54:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xjN3k+h9/19e8n3TUBzXbjvtcnT1sxicVh7yjaUNTwA=; b=gYwNfb3CNAXH8Z6zWMW8OpJ6S6m0OnUpfamFay8GiWZ3Bt6yFSGbcI8yOoZWI6PqRw hcXTL4iozW1cKlrJSoRar4uZn9WHP+WjyXClJ+34hbnlsZNkEeXySGxIRMwVd+A+jGVs WX3E1KDEgGzxwx6sXR2IObCuhIs+YYWSvJyT07uo+tm3kzJtWd9aAPbJYVWpeockAWAG hYJcI47yF9591X0LQyTlJla+FckjdltfJcb7ndSeJQIQa8B2jraf0o4i/6D8HrtbSGWh EmlbnXncp6tFHo5n7OEs3S1hY3MJdsqYZFKjZHTO7ps1kUJ06l0zDpldGhH27T9tLolt tAMg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xjN3k+h9/19e8n3TUBzXbjvtcnT1sxicVh7yjaUNTwA=; b=XrpYKmEXvYzupGU3Tj664mkxYnvk79qGQu273gahb08UXv7Q7J7QztPYYnwR5lDq7i zyKy0TV9NE9FJRVPjN63ognwLVTaR39jOEmrZcKW6YDvLiR4Mx9LG3hqgUkJQSEevzot IjXz3Uc9qi8lPKn2dRbNM2etrqMIhlyZ9suCPptxUBP867+QZTq+nxXgVLAmoBdDxcSB ipRmisRBmLsXalnfQTpwDVt4e2XPJbYJq3ESNHhjYwyaDCg7qucivsMWZhgF2r+Z2FCX zSDMsIMP9Cw7ZhEljhzN8EYuGr5HllJcj9VMvho/X4oxP5pJ3Yvc1Oqsd3FOQKotMPoL 1h6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ0eyAm9ATyLzp5Mr99amdbzokNVHf9aDkqH5U2uC22/bD9K4xth dvul2jTkL773Kh1jN68+vxUYU4d/qQCWipIKutwRFYi7UvA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vtyu/BPwSRKwzNMP7aSdqnVy0ctp4UZOY/JA9fFiuVZeTmL5LNxtD8AWc+NiWBcE//rVDnQ5Z/x9X3shwtTMq8=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4484:: with SMTP id j4mr12420wrq.153.1583445242087; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 13:54:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158342819915.14611.53810193547146190@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALGR9obw90VweYQybVHSs=5MYJe8PUMt+adEAppLZ=QVPcKUew@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gO+B92LKDKdcfJwq4SbXjzh7q8qKER=3U7K=MO1VhH4Aw@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZ9sHGtr5yNHCKM9Hgp7nHAz4WTaTF=AerD666dCmF14g@mail.gmail.com> <3AFE2DC4-C4D6-478A-BFCC-448FD3B2915E@fb.com> <012fa5f9-c234-4b25-ac5a-c12d5387715f@www.fastmail.com> <CAKcm_gOummxX8RibT6nqnX68ifZiZveAMELWNg4Q+43R5nfiyg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gOummxX8RibT6nqnX68ifZiZveAMELWNg4Q+43R5nfiyg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 21:53:50 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oY9uvm8vF2g7hQNMOt2UzgMezCoiUJve4Q=qo9kwCm3-g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002d0bd805a02293c4"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::431; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x431.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1j9yRZ-0007s9-Sq 693f71aa8660a60cd7376b2a0f84a372
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9oY9uvm8vF2g7hQNMOt2UzgMezCoiUJve4Q=qo9kwCm3-g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37415
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>

I agree with the points made but I think my question was unclear of my
intent. So let me rephrase it as: HTTP/2 allows the PRIORITY frame to be
sent on a stream at any point. Do we want to allow NU_PRIORITY on request
streams but constrain the states that it can be sent in?

Given that we're trying to define something that works equivalently across
HTTP/2 and HTTP/3, my inclination is that restricting NU_PRIORITY to stream
0 and the control stream achieves that.


On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 9:40 PM Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:

> Martin's concern is exactly right.
>
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 4:24 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2020, at 07:43, Roberto Peon wrote:
>> > Until HTTP offers chunk-extensions again, I don’t see how it can be
>> otherwise?
>>
>> I don't think that's the concern, it's that there is no way for a client
>> to send an update if the request stream is closed.  At least in QUIC.
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email