IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Nice to have guidance (was: Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent)

Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com> Tue, 21 July 2020 19:01 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 D8DC63A08C6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.02
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=apple.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 D4RYhjvSmNB8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:01:07 -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 15EB63A0A88 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:00:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jxxSu-0006fn-3B for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:58:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:58:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jxxSu-0006fn-3B@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 <ekinnear@apple.com>) id 1jxxSs-0006f1-9t for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:58:10 +0000
Received: from ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp02.apple.com ([17.171.2.68]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ekinnear@apple.com>) id 1jxxSq-0004Iy-5j for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 18:58:09 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp02.apple.com [127.0.0.1]) by ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp02.apple.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 06LIrCuS056825; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:57:56 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=apple.com; h=from : message-id : content-type : mime-version : subject : date : in-reply-to : cc : to : references; s=20180706; bh=LJt3QHX4ff2wHPZDdKNZK+1cA5F79zMG7Ib56FDJsNA=; b=T1duZRAnKQX9M7HmZyTxRpLpBQYS7EJwP99ePks70bNS7jIECFtvz+C+9KJHg1o4xV0K /lcc8tjQdlgRNorykhmmhCum/H0u1stqETQlNRs0+aas00yJCAfbwNERItEwfruLeW9W oKBY2CDBgEaEx3hOSgaN4g/2eE5G3wUuYBVPitwyv1CF1yTEz+7Et2Kl32qfnjWUXSHi PPo2rBL9Xl+BM3rPgp6ESD5XoWyQ8mza/6TApTPql3S/3456Qr7CaBAwhn/hiSpFX8FK yEO82pnCPZxCU2oZhBd1FZ92OOB8tkwdBcn2fOFmAWkfDC6i9dAXPJ/MVJXNppUkW+cA JA==
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com [10.225.203.152]) by ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp02.apple.com with ESMTP id 32bwrsc77v-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:57:56 -0700
Received: from rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com (rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com [17.179.253.17]) by rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPS id <0QDU00YBV20K2M10@rn-mailsvcp-mta-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from process_milters-daemon.rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) id <0QDU004001VE1M00@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Va-A:
X-Va-T-CD: 1d306975629049ed2d0a273297550cbe
X-Va-E-CD: bcbc1e3ae592edfaf2d3b1705e2776f6
X-Va-R-CD: 2f0c732e2d3877da615effee2ea58075
X-Va-CD: 0
X-Va-ID: 0670b1ef-bb89-4573-aef9-f673ae538648
X-V-A:
X-V-T-CD: 1d306975629049ed2d0a273297550cbe
X-V-E-CD: bcbc1e3ae592edfaf2d3b1705e2776f6
X-V-R-CD: 2f0c732e2d3877da615effee2ea58075
X-V-CD: 0
X-V-ID: a79735b6-681d-47ed-8539-5c30923320e5
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-21_14:2020-07-21,2020-07-21 signatures=0
Received: from [17.232.190.59] (unknown [17.232.190.59]) by rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 8.1.0.5.20200312 64bit (built Mar 12 2020)) with ESMTPSA id <0QDU0054820JT400@rn-mailsvcp-mmp-lapp04.rno.apple.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:57:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com>
Message-id: <A0508899-F1A1-4516-9333-C4A3BA95A4AD@apple.com>
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1F8E1281-0378-4E6A-A39D-42919C57E017"
MIME-version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 11:57:55 -0700
In-reply-to: <CALGR9obXPffL2QvFCMXZooFvZ5n7sWvvXLb_K_FBUA4zwaBY_w@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
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> <CAJV+MGy2CytgPVEwEO3nDfpZ6h9+CCL-bODk=65cXexvS3N7Lw@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oYDApddLFzXv180TEXpmTaOpDCDNY41PxmbMJK7N4F4zQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMWgRNaMZxph3zQv+O-SW7=PKBtDuGZNQ4+3X2geyXU545Vx9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAMWgRNaBAodWewpbi4cqFiMLWVd0SDnau7B4x0tjk+i=sMURpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzyQiNXY6xOYju8afe7-T6ZNMtQTPQE-AkfFK=2_yTzB1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEhh+K=uMS613OsDFmvH18miNvm9m11M7QsL02Lc+JxUhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGx3-cvPER2q1SPsgTbVP0TwAgPzNCQk_40dDPSr3JfkNg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGwXLoVe3RWPMCw9iJQ1Qr0TrJOezWq1VWOqrWYnBneQ4Q@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9ob5E9ufzut7gZ37HwFvzeUb8mZYcyy=M3xKhS3hCCfyyw@mail.gmail.com> <4B9F6F51-4F0A-4A41-AA6D-2CB82A1B6531@mnot.net> <594BE12E-D3C4-454F-B7DB-FFF745DF536F@apple.com> <CALGR9obXPffL2QvFCMXZooFvZ5n7sWvvXLb_K_FBUA4zwaBY_w@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.235,18.0.687 definitions=2020-07-21_14:2020-07-21,2020-07-21 signatures=0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=17.171.2.68; envelope-from=ekinnear@apple.com; helo=ma1-aaemail-dr-lapp02.apple.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jxxSq-0004Iy-5j da3f554dcfe4f782b0d067c5b1699554
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Nice to have guidance (was: Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/A0508899-F1A1-4516-9333-C4A3BA95A4AD@apple.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37903
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>


> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:19 AM, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> Just responding to your side note
> 
> On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 6:56 PM Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com <mailto:ekinnear@apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> Side note:
> 
> For the document as a whole, we’ve gotten some feedback internally that it would be really nice if there were some (minimal, recommendation only) guidance as to how to respond to the priority signals when received. This wouldn’t be restrictive, as we’re really excited to experiment here and see what awesome results we can achieve, but having a baseline of “implement this as written and you’ll do okay” might be worth considering to increase the likelihood that we have a large group of generally-performant implementations.
> 
> An example here would be if two requests of the same urgency arrive back-to-back, the first with the incremental bit set and the second without. What gets sent when? What do you do next if a third request arrives with the incremental bit also set before the first is complete? There are lots and lots of permutations, but a general approach of handling new items coming in is something that I think we’ve all been imagining during discussions, but we haven’t really written it down explicitly. Internally, as we discussed with some folks new to the topic, we discovered that our imaginations of what to do in cases like these didn’t actually align as well as we thought.
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. I think this is orthogonal to the reprioritization issue
Absolutely!

> so I've created https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1232 <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1232> to capture your comments. I think this might have some cross over with https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1216 <https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/1216> so if you coud take at look at those and add anything more to them it would be appreciated.

Sounds great, thank you! 

Much appreciated, 
Eric

> 
> Cheers
> Lucas
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email