IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Mon, 04 February 2013 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 5104321F88E4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 22:58:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.454
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sCLTThgjDJ9V for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 22:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F5821F87DC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 22:58:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U2Fzf-0004Gl-Ux for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:57:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:57:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U2Fzf-0004Gl-Ux@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1U2Fza-0004E3-Hz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:57:26 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>) id 1U2FzZ-0004SD-Ci for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:57:26 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.61.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5389089EAF; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 06:57:03 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r146v2qJ003431; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 06:57:02 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <CAA4WUYjiBZpShKKFfHQnixc94aOLrck0oR4ykARB=hF5h8nkfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <CAA4WUYjiBZpShKKFfHQnixc94aOLrck0oR4ykARB=hF5h8nkfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:57:02 +0000
Message-ID: <3430.1359961022@critter.freebsd.dk>
Received-SPF: none client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@phk.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.500, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U2FzZ-0004SD-Ci dc1fa4ad8af771a68f2a8476983faf1a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3430.1359961022@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16348
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <CAA4WUYjiBZpShKKFfHQnixc94aOLrck0oR4ykARB=hF5h8nkfA@mail.gmail.com>
, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes:

>Anyway, the existing prioritization bug is as follows:

[...]

>The backend server
>obviously can't do this because it doesn't (at least, shouldn't!) know
>the clients behind the proxy.

This flies counter to vast experience:  Servers do almost everything
they can to identify the actual client (X-F-F, cookies, fingerprinting
etc), so I think this premise needs to be rethought.

>I consider all those options as suboptimal, and thus consider this
>issue to be a protocol bug. Our SPDY/4 prioritization proposal
>addresses this by using stream groups with advisory (all this is
>advisory after all) [...]

So what does the groups buy you, for all the complexity they add ?

As far as I can tell:  Nothing.

I think the priority should simply be documented as advisory and
mention that intermediaries SHOULD respect them, subject to
local administrative policy, and leave it at that.

The current proposal is complex enough as it is, adding complexity
to not solve problems that cannot be solved technically, is not
an improvement.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email