Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent
Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> Tue, 28 July 2020 06:45 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 036DB3A0CE1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 23:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.918
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yoav-ws.20150623.gappssmtp.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 FIyaBhVna4F7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 23:45:09 -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 8D87D3A0CDD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 23:45:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1k0JJv-0002uX-S1 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:42:40 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:42:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1k0JJv-0002uX-S1@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 <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1k0JJt-0002tm-Pi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:42:37 +0000
Received: from mail-lf1-x134.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::134]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1k0JJq-0005AD-Af for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2020 06:42:37 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-x134.google.com with SMTP id j22so4487627lfm.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 23:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yoav-ws.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=cLlunsTwnvCpOool9xhSR6nvD/5J3GkBezQEtkQM5FY=; b=GDLpT+R630JOXxQuOGkzUCjwydJbNhty/pxCfUbMc2LdZ6C0haD2Xz8SKbioDWeSYA QI/wnL8yHxsAwEUwtFzliU01kRshwA1VDBiDao/9WZdTgCuvN/7xK3lVikIixorPOwcJ 82Pi7MbQ/9PkLVAlXcBOLESgYeRaC1wHH2uHC2Z8/7ljPmv7489XnOlgNTAQXofT8Xvi 8LRH4NAkPVjCTLAzF6x2zOYW0dE1sN5t/vgJpPX4LKdDNtClJQLZSykt2p3eV6Z+BLPX 7IZm+syrkI1KW3PZELyvwmdmPFLlchogA1+D6+Td1DFcQuAs1/Ka0p1E/mfGTbZuIIl2 0kcA==
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=cLlunsTwnvCpOool9xhSR6nvD/5J3GkBezQEtkQM5FY=; b=bC+YsF0amXpXA3nBzoV0ugiq5A314khct5SX16o8ai8/rS7DVDmZqLgt6hrPSre1ts aQYd67G8VuwzHYP56Nv6G1upY25WZPDEWYyvSBlSwVwnPi9ZPp9osblzSeURqK4anBjc KdNHY8dmRktBkx/7/Mx8wedvQEJ0JwtkFV9mTwUOOytCD1j0+PC0GB7WkUkX4Rn3zkNg ZcNnoUIcsf6w0WNeS89tpSAIwRnMq51DfPZS1PHquJmcWC9wYRIQmKkqLb+4bAKgpd71 nA0lbXp6tfD/wRigUZhhNWT4e4sQXhDNElRkttESmnxi0LRFmcmzSIsqRRFd8N8qBpGi smUg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531dsm/GpZnHWazhwna0T5G5mPGWBgKQSTbDVTQx/ZC86Smsm492 IAQ6WcCAadFGpB3sApqR2tVFimBWLilss973f5O3sw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlUrJFwlkK5cJLNJBl/lFnl1+vrYMasa5v1dFmtB4GIflgs9b+6sPno4+3xx9dUzy/xHCizJHdONneeR4oL+M=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:2388:: with SMTP id j130mr13463574lfj.190.1595918542233; Mon, 27 Jul 2020 23:42:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <CACj=BEib86vLGQyvg+RWqX4EsDnwLGF6xxpSt6Y-WYF-M5zsxA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACj=BEib86vLGQyvg+RWqX4EsDnwLGF6xxpSt6Y-WYF-M5zsxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 08:42:06 +0200
Message-ID: <CACj=BEjH=DUDqgDO0rV8dNHW3x0P1HuRh4rgzp2Ok9xK16iq3g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, Bence Béky <bnc@google.com>, David Schinazi <dschinazi@google.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ccf7ad05ab7abd86"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::134; envelope-from=yoav@yoav.ws; helo=mail-lf1-x134.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: mimas.w3.org 1k0JJq-0005AD-Af ff7cfb7bab1b280a48a058f66d710046
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACj=BEjH=DUDqgDO0rV8dNHW3x0P1HuRh4rgzp2Ok9xK16iq3g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37913
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>
I ran the above by +David Schinazi <dschinazi@google.com>, who better represents the Chrome networking team than me. His reply is: "Chrome will closely follow proposals related to HTTP/3 reprioritization, and is very likely to implement a proposal that gets consensus in the IETF QUIC Working Group" On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 9:06 PM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: > +Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com> +Bence Béky <bnc@google.com> > > Google's Chrome and QUIC teams similarly intend to implement and support > reprioritization, for similar use-cases. > Upgrading images that are in or approaching the viewport as well as > downgrading the priority of large downloads both seem like important use > cases. > Video streaming use-cases where either quality-tier change or user actions > result in download changes also seem worthwhile (although I'm not sure if > cancellation can't handle some of those). > > Another use-case I heard from folks is that of JS reprioritization as a > result of user-actions: scripts that large apps want to download in > low-priority can become critical as a result of a user-action that needs > them. Being able to reprioritize can significantly impact such apps' > responsiveness. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:59 PM Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> We (both in Safari and in URLSession for general HTTP usage on Apple >> platforms) are quite excited about the new priorities document and the >> opportunities it brings to simplify and focus on information that’s >> strictly necessary to communicate between the client, server, and >> intermediaries. >> >> Specific to reprioritization, we have several cases where we use, and so >> far believe we need to continue to use, reprioritization (although ideas on >> workarounds are always welcome!). >> >> First, the Web download case that’s been discussed (and thanks Patrick >> for running some related experiments for web traffic!), where we use >> reprioritization to modify the incremental bit on resources. >> >> Second, when streaming HLS video, we prioritize the currently playing >> tier above the other tiers. We may have several requests outstanding for >> the next several segments of video, and when we switch up/down we need to >> be able to reprioritize those alternate tiers. Unfortunately, so far it’s >> looking like not being able to reprioritize these requests would prevent >> our implementation of the new priority scheme. For Low-Latency HLS, we >> certainly will need to use reprioritization if we’re to fit within the >> currently proposed priority tiers. >> >> Finally, a more generalized example. As we work to help customers and >> clients of the APIs we offer, we’ve found that many of our efforts to guide >> them towards appropriate prioritization of less important work at lower >> priorities is only enabled by the ability to raise that priority later when >> circumstances change. >> >> As a very contrived (but unfortunately close to real world) example, >> consider a case where we ask a client to de-prioritize loading of images in >> a list view that aren’t close to being scrolled into view by the user. If >> we can offer higher priority for those images once the user starts >> scrolling closer to having those items come into view, our clients are >> generally happy to initially load such images at lower priorities. However, >> if they’re stuck with that initial priority forever, they end up loading >> the entire set of images at a high priority *just in case* they might be >> eventually blocking render. A good bit of the time, that never happens, so >> we end up having everything at high priority when in reality we would >> rarely have needed to reprioritize the requests. And once everything’s at >> high priority, we no longer have the utility of the priority system at all. >> >> There are all sorts of ways to dissect that particular example, but the >> general response we’ve seen remains: folks are much more willing to fully >> utilize a prioritization system in the real world if they’re able to adjust >> the priorities that they assigned later on when they have more information >> or the circumstances change. >> >> Thanks, >> Eric >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> On Jul 9, 2020, at 11:46 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> Thanks to everyone for their efforts so far. >> >> There's one other aspect that the we think it'd be helpful to get a sense >> of -- what the implementer intent is regarding reprioritisation. >> >> In particular, it'd be very helpful to have an indication from each >> implementation -- in user agents as well as servers (including >> intermediaries) -- as to how likely they are to produce/consume >> reprioritisations if specified. >> >> Note that's per-implementation, *not* per-person, so please coordinate if >> your implementation has multiple participants here. >> >> Responding to this e-mail is fine. >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> On 7 Jul 2020, at 7:50 am, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> Hi Patrick, >> >> Thanks for running this experiment and presenting the data back to the >> group. >> >> Also thanks to the Chrome folk for enabling the disabling flag. >> >> Cheers >> Lucas >> >> >> On Mon, 6 Jul 2020, 21:19 Patrick Meenan, <patmeenan@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sorry about the delay, just gathered the results. The full raw results >> are here. It looks like the impact dropped quite a bit across the full 25k >> URLs but looking at individual tests the impact is quite dramatic when it >> does impact (and it does exactly what we'd expect it to do for those >> outlier cases). >> >> The 95th percentile numbers tend to be the more interesting ones and in >> the data set, reprioritization enabled is the control and disabled is the >> experiment so positive changes means disabling reprioritization is that >> much slower. >> >> Largest Contentful Paint: 4% slower without reprioritization >> Speed Index: 2.75% slower without reprioritization >> Dom Content Loaded: 1.3% faster without reprioritization >> >> This is pretty much (directionally) what we'd expect since >> reprioritization boosts the priority of visible images (LPC/Speed Index) >> above late-body scripts (DCL). It's particularly dramatic for pages that >> use background images for any part of the page because they are discovered >> after all other resources and would normally be scheduled after all other >> scripts and inline images but if they are visible in the viewport the >> reprioritization helps them load much sooner. >> >> Looking at a few examples of the extreme cases: >> >> https://www.thehelm.co/ - (Filmstrip) - The main background image in the >> interstitial loads at < 10s vs 90s without reprioritization >> https://blog.nerdfactory.ai/ - (Filmstrip) - The background image for >> the main content loads at <5s vs 70s without reprioritization. No cost to >> DCL, just prioritized ahead of not-visible images. >> https://events.nuix.com/ - (Filmstrip) - Another hero background image >> (detecting a theme?) loads at 10s vs 60s >> >> Looking at a few of the bigger DCL regressions: >> >> https://oaklandcitychurch.org/ - (Filmstrip) - DCL got much slower (11s >> -> 33s) as a direct result of the background image moving from 30s to 10s >> (the pop-up interstitial was delayed along with the scripts that control >> it). >> >> For the specific case that most of these tests exposed (background image >> discovered late by CSS) it is theoretically possible for Chrome to detect >> the position before making the initial request (since it is only discovered >> at layout anyway) but that wouldn't help any of the more dynamic cases like >> when a user scrolls a page or a carousel rotates and what is on screen >> changes dynamically. >> >> I'm still of the pretty strong opinion that we need reprioritization but >> the web won't necessarily break without it and sites (and browsers) may be >> able to minimize the impact of not being able to reprioritize (though that >> might involve holding back requests and prioritizing locally like Chrome >> does for slow HTTP/2 connections). >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:17 AM Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> An early read on Yoav's Canary test is that most metrics are neutral but >> Largest Contentful Paint degrades ~6.8% on average and 12% at the 95th >> percentile without reprioritization and Speed Index degrades 2.6% on >> average and 5.4% at the 95th percentile. This is not entirely unexpected >> because the main use case for reprioritization in Chrome right now is >> boosting the priority of visible images after layout is done. >> >> We'll see if it holds after the full test is complete. The early read is >> from 3,000 of the 25,000 URLs that we are testing (all https hosted on >> Fastly for simplicity since we know it handles HTTP/2 reprioritization >> correctly). The tests are all run at "3G Fast" speeds with desktop pages >> to maximize the liklihood that there will be time for reprioritization to >> happen. I'll provide the full raw data as well as summary results when the >> test is complete (at least another week, maybe 2). >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 5:43 AM Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 9:55 AM Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> 2020年6月11日(木) 6:46 Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org>: >> (Sorry, sent it too soon...) >> >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kinuko Yasuda <kinuko@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Reg: reprioritization benefit I can share some recent data for Chrome. >> For the two cases that are currently discussed I'm actually not fully sure >> about its benefit. >> >> For the renderer-triggered image reprioritization cases: this is a bit >> interesting one, we recently found two things: >> - Delaying to start low-prio requests could often work better (partly >> because of server-side handling) than re-prioritizing while inflight >> - In-lab measurements (tested with top 10k real sites, both on Mobile and >> Desktop) showed that removing in-flight re-prioritization doesn't impact >> page load performance a lot >> >> Let me stress though that testing this with servers that can properly >> handle reprioritization could change the landscape, and again this isn't >> really capturing how it affects long-lived request cases, or cases where >> tabs go foreground & background while loading, so for now I'm not very >> motivated to remove the reprioritization feature either. >> >> Hi Kinuko, >> >> Thank you for sharing your data. I feel a bit sad that reprioritization >> isn't showing much benefit at the moment. I tend to agree that we are >> likely to see different results between server implementations and HTTP >> versions being used. The effectiveness of reprioritization depends on the >> depth of the send buffer (after prioritization decision is made), at least >> to certain extent. >> >> FWIW, I added a flag to turn off Chromium's H2 request prioritization. I >> believe +Pat Meenan is currently running tests with and without this flag a >> list of servers we estimate is likely to handle them well. >> >> >> >> I suspect this is maybe because server-side handling is not always >> perfect and most of requests on the web are short-lived, and this may not >> be true for the cases where long-running requests matter. I don't have >> data for whether may impact background / foreground cases (e.g. Chrome >> tries to lower priorities when tabs become background) >> >> For download cases, Chrome always starts a new download with a low >> priority (even if it has started as a navigation), so reprioritization >> doesn't happen. >> >> Kinuko >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:21 AM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:27 PM Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> Eric's download example is a great one for exposing the risks that would >> come for an implementation that supported prioritization but not >> reprioritization. >> >> Take the trivial example of an anchor link that links to a download (say, >> a 200MB installer of some kind): >> - When the user clicks on the link, the browser assumes it is doing a >> navigation and issues the request with the "HTML" priority (relatively >> high, possibly non-incremental >> - When the response starts coming back, it has the content-disposition to >> download to a file. >> - At this point, the 200MB download will block every other lower-priority >> request on the same connection (or possibly navigation if it is >> non-incremental) >> - The user clicks on another page on the same site and gets nothing or a >> broken experience until the 200MB download completes >> >> Without reprioritization the browser will effectively have to burn the >> existing QUIC connection and issue any requests on a new connection (and >> repeat for each new download). >> >> Implementing prioritization without reprioritization in this case is >> worse than having no prioritization support at all. >> >> Thanks Eric for presenting this case, and Patrick for breaking it down. >> That does seem like a pretty bad outcome. >> >> Is this a good candidate for a test case? IIUC correctly the problem >> might occur today with HTTP/2 depending on how exclusive priorities are >> used. I'm curious if browsers can share any more information about what >> they do already. How does Firefox manage such a resource with it's priority >> groups? >> >> Cheers >> Lucas >> >> >> >> -- >> Kazuho Oku >> >> >> -- >> Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ >> >> >> >>
- Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Lucas Pardue
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Yoav Weiss
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Lucas Pardue
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Patrick Meenan
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Lucas Pardue
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Yoav Weiss
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Eric Kinnear
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Kazuho Oku
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Martin Thomson
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Bence Béky
- Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: Exte… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Patrick Meenan
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Patrick Meenan
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Lucas Pardue
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Lucas Pardue
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Kinuko Yasuda
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Kinuko Yasuda
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Kazuho Oku
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Yoav Weiss
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Martin Thomson
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Kazuho Oku
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Stefan Eissing
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Yoav Weiss
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Stefan Eissing
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Yoav Weiss
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Stefan Eissing
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Yoav Weiss
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Patrick Meenan
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Yoav Weiss
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Patrick Meenan
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Kazuho Oku
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Yoav Weiss
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Barry Pollard
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Barry Pollard
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Kazuho Oku
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Yoav Weiss
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Lucas Pardue
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Tom Bergan
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Lucas Pardue
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Tom Bergan
- Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: … Lucas Pardue
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Patrick Meenan
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Patrick Meenan
- Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization Lucas Pardue
- Reprioritization - implementation intent Mark Nottingham
- Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent Eric Kinnear
- Nice to have guidance (was: Re: Reprioritization … Lucas Pardue
- Re: Nice to have guidance (was: Re: Reprioritizat… Eric Kinnear
- Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent Yoav Weiss
- Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent Yoav Weiss
- Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent Yoav Weiss