Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 26 July 2019 05:27 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 72DE912029A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:27:46 -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 GVFsOzvAiZlx for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:27:44 -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 8D3501202A3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2019 22:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hqsjF-0004QM-Ub for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:25:17 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:25:17 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hqsjF-0004QM-Ub@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 1hqsjE-0004Pb-3f for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:25:16 +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 1hqsjB-0005RK-Vb for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 05:25:15 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x6Q5OnHo029783; Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:24:49 +0200
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 07:24:49 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20190726052449.GD29509@1wt.eu>
References: <CALjsk164zz+nDy5ZmOhvCscBQrBNMKTW0fz7Zxy=KtVx+ktz+Q@mail.gmail.com> <20190726031912.GB29509@1wt.eu> <CALGR9oZ7CyJ3LD4rmJn+4=E83ad3qc93Nc82-uJMXjiRL+NQjA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CALGR9oZ7CyJ3LD4rmJn+4=E83ad3qc93Nc82-uJMXjiRL+NQjA@mail.gmail.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=1.082, 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 1hqsjB-0005RK-Vb 3ea66803826cf8fbbd930d657fec2904
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20190726052449.GD29509@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36843
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 Lucas,

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 11:48:40PM -0400, Lucas Pardue wrote:
> The aim is to maintain todays default behavior of endpoints supporting H2.
> This is achieved by defining the initial value of the setting as 1;
> endpoints "opt out" by sending 0.

Ah OK, thanks for clearing this out!

> Do you think we have mis-specced this compared to our aim?

No, but I might have misread it, I'll re-read. I also noticed that the
beginning of the wording in the abstract mentioned clients not supporting
priorities while they are usually the ones advertising them while servers
not supporting them is (in my opinion) the real concern here (except maybe
for PUSH). But I'll have another read with more caffeine :-)

Cheers,
Willy