IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Heads-up, Chrome 111 introducing "incremental" priorities

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 26 January 2023 02:06 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 68657C14CEE5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 18:06:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.748 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b="eHWubgix"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b="btEG/Hr2"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tzaCpS8iDt-N for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 18:06:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B0ABC151534 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 18:06:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1pKrcT-0003Ta-Ml for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:04:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:04:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1pKrcT-0003Ta-Ml@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1pKrcR-0003RA-LL for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:04:03 +0000
Received: from wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.25]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1pKrcQ-00FSFg-0s for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 02:04:03 +0000
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id D31133200B04; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:03:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:03:48 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h=cc :cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:date:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1674698627; x= 1674785027; bh=QQ1f8OUOZoLe2Zpa3QlPPD9pigkGHs+z9pfzaAsXK54=; b=e HWubgixKV51LMjtAfsCCy0ypJanFS0CT1CXiFzDr9DmdCbxfx57CL3J4D9MZYZe0 pj8FHd32qflW5NYeXLcpf9XqSYlP4o7gvAEj465Alwy/wJ0S/o8uZaXi1Iw/ND0/ nimDLkord7jQdI4C+R22URG5VHdKEEX1sxYB2vgsoZmCcpWejTtySWYJFwuQ8AEj pTkl57VbbnaEm2kEQUhsyNDna1iJ4k0Kdv3mz/k1rCXYAkDchDL8rbv4EPM5gNPR PqTKWXe0szZylKfDVArUxdSNXTQmU7/blQB73qa7bHzW82x/zTSjdmB1dWrZteB4 4mYz6TpsnJi3YZXGR/ihw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-transfer-encoding :content-type:date:date:feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from :in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; t=1674698627; x= 1674785027; bh=QQ1f8OUOZoLe2Zpa3QlPPD9pigkGHs+z9pfzaAsXK54=; b=b tEG/Hr2ZFmX/I6Te1A+qRlZhlLuLbK421LsEqYXFJjc1orgAkzf2eQBCqJ+gE4Pw 2tf4DcOaziWIomRZMc0ER/hGGexoW2SavCVXD7Zd63N0lbhBoJIbw/5PwKEw/Uq9 GnUPvDtNX8P935oeFBZgUtfLSRMi0gsAFXjeJaJ76FNVgDswL8Rk2loQprp4Fmpq wzj8wCmzm+W09I6ZZKem7/3sz+BVcLBRcSAtGC+8zqWphNd/hUa+pBq3137WDb9/ cdgLSvBtTLjVlJ1Rbiw5/jozQ/4NNWers5PD4JfM39U2bz6CeEsI4N8df0YTz0Dq 91ooDz9VmE2SLS1ETe3gQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:g9_RYxffYm0vuXkgKUv6aAPZ9Ax2K6d8rhUu04fKIcJTICiWg6Ng_w> <xme:g9_RY_PCsUoX0KvzVXJzOXEW1W7p5jIuMHmTbrQJ3_FeWNlxZtjHkcTdKxJgWRPFc Y0x7MH_7OpuftSi8A>
X-ME-Received: <xmr:g9_RY6irOuz632Cn2yLrC6zA3hbDYQdcUsjKfKP38_NP46UUSuYsgcIGahNN9_3XkkWgPE_5lfU-CFP0GdFj-hTjVKBQevs2VRkcW3g3-1jye8EDzfR4o1S7>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedruddvfedgfeelucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffvefgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtddvnecuhfhrohhmpeforghr khcupfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnheptddtgefgueevtddugfdtkeffudegveetffegjeelhfdvtedvueejteegueeg teetnecuffhomhgrihhnpehmnhhothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtne curfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:g9_RY69y936k1bDmwaC8tldyDE5g5vtldwpaFUO-4f5VhvHrec3fKg> <xmx:g9_RY9vS_BeYGjiSyADsxJTov0FY3hyp3Xe4dOWRNLB4SXdsoWm1qQ> <xmx:g9_RY5El4ShMEjHvAzhrLo-IuTWgumIU2cdGbOzqu5qAbqvlmjhZ_g> <xmx:g9_RY72VwjNZSxnEnfHZl10UEK2-IqI4p-N5CysOwREkyJ95sAIgWg>
Feedback-ID: ie6694242:Fastmail
Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 25 Jan 2023 21:03:45 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.400.51.1.1\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAJV+MGzhYei4kXT5N3SNrsguak6ujvjq3WoS6ieDtifwzcBbHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:03:21 +1100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <938664CF-EDF3-4DC7-9E7A-CE8556687A4A@mnot.net>
References: <CAJV+MGzhYei4kXT5N3SNrsguak6ujvjq3WoS6ieDtifwzcBbHw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.400.51.1.1)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=64.147.123.25; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=wout2-smtp.messagingengine.com
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=mnot@mnot.net domain=mnot.net), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=mnot@mnot.net domain=messagingengine.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1pKrcQ-00FSFg-0s e46257392602e1e9074be20488a00907
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Heads-up, Chrome 111 introducing "incremental" priorities
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/938664CF-EDF3-4DC7-9E7A-CE8556687A4A@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40713
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>

Thanks, Patrick.

This makes me wonder whether we should include advice about greasing into sf-bis.

Cheers,


> On 26 Jan 2023, at 3:34 am, Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Chrome 111 (currently in dev channel) will be using the incremental flag for most requests (most everything except for scripts and stylesheets).
> 
> Safari already makes use of it but both Firefox and Safari use headers while Chrome currently uses priority update frames.
> 
> IMPORTANT: one big difference is that Chrome currently omits the urgency in the value of the priority field dictionary if the urgency is the default and will send an "i" by itself (Safari appears to always send the urgency explicitly).
> 
> I mention this because we're seeing an increase in protocol errors being reported that coincides with the revision where the flag was added.
> 
> So far it looks like the mvfast implementation might not like the priority string (which appears to be a valid use of the dictionary structured type but maybe hasn't been exercised) but there may be other implementations that I'm not aware of that also choke on it (both the Google and Cloudflare quiche implementations seem to be ok with it).
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Pat

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

v2.38.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status