IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies

"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Mon, 04 February 2013 20:36 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 3235121F8A52 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:36:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.585
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.585 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.014, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 qcg5nKQYw2gg for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:36:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 856D321F8947 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 12:36:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U2Sku-0003la-F9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:35:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:35:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U2Sku-0003la-F9@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 1U2Sko-00032t-N9 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:35:02 +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 1U2Skn-0007fd-MX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:35:02 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [192.168.61.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDF38A521; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:34:40 +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 r14KYdKq002347; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:34:40 GMT (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <42A54D15-0AA3-4172-94F7-E94C86E84D7F@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <CAA4WUYjiBZpShKKFfHQnixc94aOLrck0oR4ykARB=hF5h8nkfA@mail.gmail.com> <3430.1359961022@critter.freebsd.dk> <510F72CE.8030003@treenet.co.nz> <CAA4WUYiBJrLjM0-vurFOuJfUaabXtK=W8N5z28yshSfrvD9crg@mail.gmail.com> <1516.1360002578@critter.freebsd.dk> <42A54D15-0AA3-4172-94F7-E94C86E84D7F@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 20:34:39 +0000
Message-ID: <2346.1360010079@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=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.376, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U2Skn-0007fd-MX ee83bbca83a2d56568fc78b3a9318aa2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/2346.1360010079@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16362
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 <42A54D15-0AA3-4172-94F7-E94C86E84D7F@niven-jenkins.co.uk>, Ben Nive
n-Jenkins writes:

>So the idea is the protocol contains enough 'hooks' to sufficiently 
>express the different priorities between & within groups that folks 
>would like to express but isn't prescriptive about how anyone uses or 
>implements different prioritisation, scheduling, etc schemes.

That was clearly not how the original poster presented it:

	"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 [...]"

-- 
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