Re: HTTP/2 GREASE, Results, and Implications

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 15 November 2019 16:04 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 98B81120892 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:04:04 -0800 (PST)
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 2iQ9F_c-bYMz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:04:01 -0800 (PST)
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 B7D92120801 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 08:04:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1iVe3H-00063x-Ao for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:02:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:02:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1iVe3H-00063x-Ao@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4c]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1iVe3F-00062w-F4 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:02:25 +0000
Received: from wtarreau.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.114.60] helo=1wt.eu) by titan.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1iVe3C-0006lq-La for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:02:24 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id xAFG2F9p025408; Fri, 15 Nov 2019 17:02:15 +0100
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 17:02:15 +0100
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Bence =?iso-8859-1?Q?B=E9ky?= <bnc@chromium.org>
Cc: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>, Stefan Eissing <stefan.eissing@greenbytes.de>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20191115160215.GE25181@1wt.eu>
References: <20191031155259.GC30674@1wt.eu> <CACMu3trL5UMukoPd8Nr4W-bMsyH+WKUnwg16yxu3tN5D=uZt8w@mail.gmail.com> <20191031203458.GA31017@1wt.eu> <CACMu3toue60Y_6Qxpzsqw-fOByc3Qjv=AG8Ed_DGvkR1EYn+4w@mail.gmail.com> <20191101131903.GA1988@1wt.eu> <6F4160E3-D460-4DD9-9931-348479F6437F@greenbytes.de> <CACMu3trFUKpywX1GoChNn59B1tOmOUuaPESVFPy2u7Ah3gy0Jw@mail.gmail.com> <20191106202411.GA15081@1wt.eu> <CA+3+x5GyCgh2JROXwd+mo3Rsew1EDzJ6diyvHoLv3JwbJLg6Xg@mail.gmail.com> <CACMu3tq3JSXgEY0SudqWzqXH+QjoBcW3Q94Ltj6tZHjDmwwBEQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CACMu3tq3JSXgEY0SudqWzqXH+QjoBcW3Q94Ltj6tZHjDmwwBEQ@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=-7.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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: titan.w3.org 1iVe3C-0006lq-La c5b0de5f107071c9e1ffd158e65d4db5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 GREASE, Results, and Implications
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/20191115160215.GE25181@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37137
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 Bence,

On Fri, Nov 15, 2019 at 10:17:57AM -0500, Bence Béky wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thank you for raising this issue.  I agree with the requirements that you
> outline with respect to the NEW_PRIORITY frame.
> 
> Just a comment that in case it is not possible to resolve the issue in a
> way that's favorable to the priority use case (for example, if the
> timeframe for updating all deployments in not acceptable for the desired
> timeframe of launching priorities), then another option would be to send
> priority-related frames on stream 0, and encode the stream ID they refer to
> within the frame payload.  Sure that's a waste of four bytes per frame, but
> at least it should work (as long as implementations are correctly
> discarding unknown frames on stream 0).

Actually I think I like this and probably we should have done this as well
for WINDOW_UPDATE (it's always easy to say afterwards). Because such frames
which may reference closed streams are really more related to the connection's
health than to the stream itself in fact and that would make more sense in
the way they are processed.

Cheers,
Willy