Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization)

Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de> Mon, 15 June 2020 07:59 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 0337E3A0911 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.65
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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 rWpcfrfLz_MD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
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 562793A0AA9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 00:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jkjyG-0002nk-6x for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:55:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:55:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jkjyG-0002nk-6x@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 <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1jkjyC-0002my-EG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:55:52 +0000
Received: from mail2.greenbytes.de ([5.10.171.186] helo=mail.greenbytes.de) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>) id 1jkjyA-0000Wx-RW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 07:55:52 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 119) id 099369850BB; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from icing.fritz.box (unknown [84.157.190.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24CC3980987; Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:55:37 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>
In-Reply-To: <CANatvzyv03VH9=+J=M2yY0EwCXp7HMWsXYaXOE=WYGDKBHdaVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 09:55:36 +0200
Cc: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>, Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, =?utf-8?Q?Bence_B=C3=A9ky?= <bnc@chromium.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2C53D8AF-EFA8-42A3-9666-955A054468DB@greenbytes.de>
References: <CALGR9obRjBSADN1KtKF6jvFVzNS1+JzaS0D0kCVKHKkd4sn+MQ@mail.gmail.com> <459C86F8-A989-4EF4-84DC-3568FF594F36@apple.com> <CANatvzwSpSHd7kZD-4tyMGkBJDdCBi6r_pLBvnaT8rrQy6SBHQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACMu3treK0m2mbpw9FebOjOcEed0bW-DbLbryHJH1DWAHoz+9g@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZgE7ZfXdoYdUh9LUYC1fi8fMUyyTpvmV3GF7Z6Oxgg1g@mail.gmail.com> <20200609144428.GC22180@lubuntu> <CAJV+MGyuhxx=P6kZKktuREeq5pipZjxmwWP4jE_Sxhj_+krU2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzx_eg84V7UefOtSF+NHGHnTg7h-9n5bsRZRXxBqsaOkfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEip6+7AunFsD=6qM5rsgrTfg6bRctOMu1gOe-KVjAW7Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzyv03VH9=+J=M2yY0EwCXp7HMWsXYaXOE=WYGDKBHdaVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.10.171.186; envelope-from=stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jkjyA-0000Wx-RW c6fab378e3622f5ecaa12f9319d58238
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/2C53D8AF-EFA8-42A3-9666-955A054468DB@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37760
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>

> Am 11.06.2020 um 10:41 schrieb Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>om>:
> 
> That depends on how much clients would rely on reprioritization. Unlike H2 priorities, Extensible Priority does not have inter-stream dependencies. Therefore, losing *some* prioritization signals is less of an issue compared to H2 priorities.
> 
> Assuming that reprioritization is used mostly for refining the initial priorities of a fraction of all the requests, I think there'd be benefit in defining reprioritization as an optional feature. Though I can see some might argue for not having reprioritization even as an optional feature unless there is proof that it would be useful.


> We should decide if reprioritization is good or bad, based on as much data as we can pull, and make sure it's implemented only if we see benefits for it in some cases, and then make sure it's only used in those cases.

When thinking about priority implementations, I recommend thinking about a H3 reverse proxy in front of a legacy H1 server. Assume limited memory, disk space and backend connections.

(Re-)prioritization in H2 works well for flow control, among the streams that have response data to send. Priorities can play a part in server scheduling, but
it's more tricky. By "scheduling" I mean that the server has to pick one among the opened streams for which it wants to compute a response for. This is often impossible to re-prioritize afterwards (e.g. suicidal for a server implementation).

If we would do H2 a second time, my idea would be to signal priorities in the HTTP request in a connection header and use this in the H2 frame layer to allocate DATA space on the downlink. Leave out changing priorities on a request already started. Let the client use its window sizes if it feels the need.

Cheers, Stefan (lurking)