Re: SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME | Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Tue, 30 July 2019 16:55 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 DD5D2120089 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:55:36 -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, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TRACKER_ID=0.1, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 CObO4dc7Ojr5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
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 491AA1201CB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1hsVMG-0005Bw-Aq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:52:16 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:52:16 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1hsVMG-0005Bw-Aq@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 <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1hsVMC-0005B5-Jg for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:52:12 +0000
Received: from mail-vk1-xa34.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::a34]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1hsVM9-0004HM-LE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 16:52:12 +0000
Received: by mail-vk1-xa34.google.com with SMTP id 130so12942671vkn.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h3Zj0kctupq4p7JlnXVmGoezC7DidVyIDvygEXR/G1w=; b=HgFsQxDhG+A5ZdygezvyzcHcdWV1VBTT9c2XCQvgXGl/6WH7OxSsIMvjjiPqIn+ZaG CwgFhUjmsOFZk71GuBtGyQGXOgVCrk9LmhF3aaFtgpGg55Tu1RWfpwMny5rlqqm3sXIB paz/Sj+taREIdBYwY7xsQE/uTQCTcEIeD/eb+yxHoDwU9/AvXXaXzWulFjxxi8WKYi2V PZhXa/GOnCchJM4JB8qyNnt1hsoWO7Esuj29EIsqObL9fznEzj7J34Sks9b2dN2JNt1p 7+DWK7hUyXV+p2TmCrXMPR5xOTRG6YwxVvvUDXRTBob7XnCGFL9uXdrxYyArVDZ30ioU SJYg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h3Zj0kctupq4p7JlnXVmGoezC7DidVyIDvygEXR/G1w=; b=AybfoLoo5iVSaaMgntmqs+/m6WxuKeToF6qVCvYztlYE3HwVF5TCOY7kjK4HzikEUo WtO5VN4y8qlmYwxdAeg251ufl9N3uXDw3WbAiwsXdSOo3l3lMCWKI/arDWO9zq0vmAc3 GzuFXTT4MBywBcVC1bUvUR5ecbDe1N4fUQHaDqu8/MilE8YCBIpckYUwf0FdXP8edxK0 Sm4tafdixX0t/9XbWwYhneuJWp8OyAqQ0sMjmbFuVQIRExltSbKHu1klFH/Zr+PVa7xU ELD/pA1HXU0EwLN7e1GoNG/F0p+vb7rW3mzdX6HoF02h0ucPwMuUOxjElAeJ0/slQAag lXug==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUHOAYKeAag51pR632LGFOHnig+v5F7dhYr4l8KrlsNp3cs5hgd MItvQXgqGKt+SuSNaClxBUCeAE++WQcJKL5v5PU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxYufU2ihOy0kQyqBQyS9fQzlNCHqqrilBVjUR4bheCDR5TJ1bLpIcUIzS9mENqZGunYfYFTIaX59pFCr2MEB4=
X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2fca:: with SMTP id v193mr46145717vkv.14.1564505507908; Tue, 30 Jul 2019 09:51:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190725191746.GB12596@ubuntu-dmitri> <20190730154809.BBE3412178@welho-filter1.welho.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190730154809.BBE3412178@welho-filter1.welho.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 17:51:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZnKo1JXnxLiKp+04kJeT5Uek3BiCPq=XSq4dG4B3AUBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>, Brad Lassey <lassey@chromium.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000000c504f058ee8d3e4"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::a34; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-vk1-xa34.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.489, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, TRACKER_ID=0.1, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1hsVM9-0004HM-LE 55d139946dd38df2e13bf36f19288075
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME | Re: Setting to disable HTTP/2 Priorities
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9oZnKo1JXnxLiKp+04kJeT5Uek3BiCPq=XSq4dG4B3AUBA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/36878
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 Kari,

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:52 PM Kari Hurtta <hurtta-ietf@elmme-mailer.org>;
wrote:

> Why boolean ("ENABLE") ?


> I suggests SETTINGS Parameter
>
> SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME
>
> with values
>
>  • 0             Sender of SETTINGS frame indicates that
>                  it does not process or send priority
>                  values
>
>  • 1             Sender of SETTINGS frame indicates that
>                  it process or send RFC7540 priorities
>
>  • unknown value (for recipient of SETTINGS frame)
>
>                  Sender of SETTINGS frame indicates that
>                  it is willing process some priority information
>                  or that it sends some priority information
>                  (but recipient of SETTINGS frame does
>                   not recognize these priorities)
>
>
> Default value for SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME is 1
> ( RFC7540 priorities aka current HTTP/2 tree priorities).
>
> Peer of HTTP/2 connection should send SETTINGS frame
> with SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME once
>
> Peer of HTTP/2 connection may send second SETTINGS frame
> with SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME if it's value is same
> than which it is received for peer on SETTINGS frame.
>
>
> That is:
>     Suggest SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME once
>     and send SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME second time
>     after that when you agreed with peer.
>
>
> That makes SETTINGS_PRIORITY_SCHEME switch to
> new priority scheme (when that is defined).
>

Boolean gives us the MVP for moving away from RFC7540 priorities. The
suggestion to allow also signalling "something else" is valid and has been
mentioned by some others, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My personal concern is that making this too complicated may result in it
not getting exercised in practice. This, to my mind, includes picking
something that is a fit for HTTP/3 too.

How would you feel about an an alternative design that uses two settings?
I.e. one for RFC750 enablement, and another to enable a specific
prioritisation scheme.

HTTP/3 allows only one SETTINGS frame in each direction, so using that as a
negotiation mechanism has problems. Boolean unilateral adverts work better
in that case. We might want to say that HTTP/3 has RFC7540 priorities
always default to disabled and not specify a setting in the core draft to
enable them. Then, using additional boolean settings per scheme would allow
a more common approach to priority scheme selection across H2 and H3.

Regards
Lucas


> / Kari Hurtta
>
>
>