IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Thu, 05 March 2020 19:46 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 21E083A0A7E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:46:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.75
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.75 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=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 8mykrsNask3j for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:46:47 -0800 (PST)
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 828433A0A77 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Mar 2020 11:46:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1j9wPe-0006Nm-Bz for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:44:06 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:44:06 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1j9wPe-0006Nm-Bz@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1j9wPY-0006Mp-Pz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:44:00 +0000
Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1j9wPX-0004Bm-Ed for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:44:00 +0000
Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id x7so8515736wrr.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 11:43:59 -0800 (PST)
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=/aykdxPh42foybOzi9WUhjwE6AIZJQfSyFKEphdZraI=; b=tny2KfOr3YGrKKyCFC+wNklTbq1GohwpHyHVq6Oo99Nymj6p5Fzgz2QQj51RKuRZJ6 S95Ubi2weYtDSdkZw+4Jqyy6IFXOhQ3E+gLjA1tEy5E1PkqC+mmtwbLYH26KkHatAJmQ x/gcAdH8U4ydF75uD5uYbiLEqq+1KyUtfa+eMvSeyPMrrnFY2OIRNaPtJuuK3+z+QZcq fJ5JEwjuNAXVEApS5+k7pWYGTaSKxlA90qHHFOgg1MxTJR6gGyoGGJbRuFdSb3JCYQ1i AmYr6ZLRo9x8U7pXZRUuNxCalKuSzQ9H+e2/Q53ViZbRNsX+EdgkUeZ5Le1V8/cXaaLd ZqiA==
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=/aykdxPh42foybOzi9WUhjwE6AIZJQfSyFKEphdZraI=; b=DUwNbGmbuQWloOIq2eKc6ixy7tY083qFZsn+9O0I9nfDqKZspL+DUIp+9hRXbX6evn /6tPkWhzq4lXQqlIsaPvrA5NUD6YlYhjw0zyEBVK07wIxujKz/DQPrSdoPNtCkiAfB6V UQGrOp17ex03CF+oYnUurrEQUAilNBPYUFYS6UQOEb/PuQRQ0SSVx2jgZiUa6bLhjtQW mohEI5nUOBI6o9AOzhzlIgDTkyzWB3qLzTZxegQA36ZdD/9B4h5N4NSapjszzjKqSj8R IqBoX0DYaLLxcQdH0icrilEcVEyIqoFtz1M8pyrB4lcSzXHW1Cbi6ZXHZ9KR2Tw29PA2 +ogg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ1s9FZPIzEojNVdtUuG6qBw49lncCX90ikFR0GHubpVZSwOxXgq fan3zCzX4Wsr388Q5l0QbB7X44e1e7t2XfwxGzm7FDcq
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vsCNaTb3oMDwe5YnOciuBrxJxssAkwxYQPX3IjVg84fWrj/SlUYgXjeG6y03hVrjJeQdvp0unj4c1mPAJZdWAE=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6881:: with SMTP id h1mr500355wru.236.1583437427952; Thu, 05 Mar 2020 11:43:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158342819915.14611.53810193547146190@ietfa.amsl.com> <CALGR9obw90VweYQybVHSs=5MYJe8PUMt+adEAppLZ=QVPcKUew@mail.gmail.com> <CAKcm_gO+B92LKDKdcfJwq4SbXjzh7q8qKER=3U7K=MO1VhH4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKcm_gO+B92LKDKdcfJwq4SbXjzh7q8qKER=3U7K=MO1VhH4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2020 19:43:36 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9oZ9sHGtr5yNHCKM9Hgp7nHAz4WTaTF=AerD666dCmF14g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000006ad28005a020c110"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42b; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42b.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: 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, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1j9wPX-0004Bm-Ed 481287dcc678a755fdd81419213ef9b5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9oZ9sHGtr5yNHCKM9Hgp7nHAz4WTaTF=AerD666dCmF14g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37408
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 Ian,

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:17 PM Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> wrote:

> Thanks for updating this draft.
>
> On the point of headers vs frame, based on my experience leading the
> design team and the slightly wider scope of use cases that are now on the
> table, which includes server-side reprioritization, I see the compromise of
> having both a frame and a header as the only way forward which has the
> ability to gain consensus.  I also truly believe there are valid use cases
> for both.
>
> I propose we should own that position and seek to describe the properties
> of each clearly.
>
> Thanks, Ian
>

 Thanks for sharing your current thinking. Clarification question, the
present design has an symmetrical design that constrains when and where
where the signal carrier is used: headers are used for initial priority,
and frames are used for reprioritization. You position supports both
carriers but does it support this constraint?

I'd also welcome other people's thoughts on this topic.

Lucas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email