Re: Call for consensus: Priorities in HTTP/3

Mark Nottingham <> Fri, 16 August 2019 01:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5427A120105 for <>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 18:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.751
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.751 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, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=k7iFEVZu; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=E2sT3tEg
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s0xnd4i9gs-I for <>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 18:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 473A6120103 for <>; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 18:07:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hyQgC-000129-Rw for; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 01:05:20 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 01:05:20 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([2603:400a:ffff:804:801e:34:0:4f]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hyQg8-00011J-6s for; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 01:05:16 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1hyQg6-0006EE-B6 for; Fri, 16 Aug 2019 01:05:16 +0000
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E07619; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:04:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:04:51 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=u ZfG4nYpWq+LNMleV8c9vKKCBQjr+SD/7f6GMeaCSTQ=; b=k7iFEVZutqnRkE5Vn 3uiqGRL6wBhFOJTZ8ZSzJewxcimYjQrdqAjtJntHrkMqk6tVw+ZXwU2qUZXvbL8E KgRNKL4QQ8PbLeQcXjjsvEhKrf5mZa1U05BbQ8ddnKgOohpodAKJIL2B1fcEZPpx xHsRFflH06R2PsxBSKxc0bfJI2u/+Kmzkcm8YOWAFOtS5WdQ1yCzVasaDSybCEOd 6HJEl9ap6Idl36p7NrQzU4/b0SIDs9gR+XpLWTtpME6C0ZLagHGtAEPfwlq62gAn tX6TXcz3SNVQF9H3Ub97zqXs2mvvI0t1lB4zbk8iAX14a2oA1MiCEqfLrl2y2ArU 90BUg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=uZfG4nYpWq+LNMleV8c9vKKCBQjr+SD/7f6GMeaCS TQ=; b=E2sT3tEgSKoAoVmqZNv+3D3Nq7auVrsBDHy6jjQ/SrGWIUDPwnqpynwze wqxXaC09HVbIzcRSoKA6jfJqYPGo09gIjPHz0y9ow4eoUVRU0osvxz9M3PNqDpUo J6mfwfw/3gGBGwlIkprGR1dVuSxPqfqfWThCtNSkIckOfVCZU9B2FXc/YDKXCTwF YpUf0F/NQ8XYQMuJ9Fhtekubnv1UPiEJ+TrPwoiutzou4EE3z+fNXtJgn1jd3NnO Uuz+5wQpgqBlXyGMbB+ErUBDPPwPUfgMSv+sIQqxflYfz20BCECk1XSbj6BzCAPB AK0ZRDO2FK7kUGs8rCOarr638lzGA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MgFWXdjrk2wKwiqS3Dmpm4BqQwu2IgOkur8TZJKf9ctY9o3r58dP7w>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudefvddggeefucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtjeenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucffohhmrghinh epfiefrdhorhhgpdhgihhthhhusgdrtghomhdpmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppedugeeg rddufeeirddujeehrddvkeenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhepmhhnohhtsehmnh hothdrnhgvthenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedt
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MgFWXY5hLPdzSj-tXxxlF14JK6RdSYfWt9C7A3JSnMG3DtD1dIgvQQ> <xmx:MgFWXVawhdO-TxkZNfk1axlQGd-CKTlazCt9IU6E7jJfeQM4U9iIPg> <xmx:MgFWXd6CQtVXN9XAgkjqETJLzQc-rUJQNabGKEb6aoHL4KRaSAitsg> <xmx:MwFWXTZtHzBbQFU9OiLJE2x6BUbIyJsjlQ-P2iksA4hQNpm5YTUViA>
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPA id BD38080062; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 21:04:48 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Mark Nottingham <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 11:04:46 +1000
Cc: Tommy Pauly <>, Patrick McManus <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: HTTP Working Group <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=3.593, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1hyQg6-0006EE-B6 ad7df1c87688ed6b69b48acbaf7fbdbe
Subject: Re: Call for consensus: Priorities in HTTP/3
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/36985
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

Hearing no pushback, consensus declared.


> On 8 Aug 2019, at 10:04 am, Mark Nottingham <>; wrote:
> In the Montreal meeting, we discussed the QUIC Working Group's intentions regarding HTTP/2 priority implementation in HTTP/3, which they are currently working on, but this WG will take control of upon publication.
> The QUIC WG is required by their charter to ship "a description of HTTP/2 semantics using QUIC", which arguably includes HTTP/2 priorities.
> However, after discussion, the overwhelming feedback we've received is that HTTP/2 priorities are not suitable for inclusion in HTTP/3. If they are specified, it is likely that a significant number of implementations will not support them.
> As a result, we believe the best path forward is NOT to require the QUIC WG to include HTTP/2 priorities in HTTP/3. Doing so does not necessarily mean that HTTP/3 will ship without a priority scheme. The expectation is that work will continue (in the HTTP WG) to develop a new priority scheme that is suitable for HTTP/3 (and ideally, available as an extension to HTTP/2).
> Meeting HTTP/3's timelines will require significant effort. We'll do our best to accommodate this work (e.g. giving time in Singapore), but by necessity, it's not clear what the outcome will be. If HTTP is ready to ship, but a new priority scheme is not agreed to, both this WG and the QUIC WG will have to determine a path forward at that time.
> In Montreal, the sense in the room was quite strong that this is the correct path forward. If you have objections, please state them clearly; in particular, if you have new information. Please do so soon; we want to finalise this next week.
> Upon consensus, we'll check this decision with both ADs to assure that QUIC remains within its charter. Once we resolve that, the practical and immediate outcome will be the removal of HTTP/2 priorities from the HTTP/3 specification; see <>;. 
> In the meantime, note that a Design Team has already begun work on a concrete proposal; see the e-mail from Ian a little while back: <>⁩
> Cheers,
> --
> Mark Nottingham

Mark Nottingham