Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent
Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws> Tue, 21 July 2020 19:09 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 1405A3A07F0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:09:55 -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 DV5n8Xv-lPOP for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:09:51 -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 8D9383A07EE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:09:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jxxbY-00019D-CI for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:07:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:07:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jxxbY-00019D-CI@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 <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1jxxbX-00018M-BA for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:07:07 +0000
Received: from mail-lj1-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <yoav@yoav.ws>) id 1jxxbT-0007xc-FR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 19:07:07 +0000
Received: by mail-lj1-x231.google.com with SMTP id s9so25242419ljm.11 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:07:02 -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=Lj/IR/rqNz0gvpL3MyUWpfVgtkkk5L28AT9xOS0bXM0=; b=YqaDNVqJ421IzSdoxYBuuCVQeGEh8K7jyBZHAdAII9XImpIj4JYYLqd4xd4C2Aqy2C tqVpZ5QcRT3rrRIoNfBZInQGmahfGsJOQl3ECyDUrJRrZTgbE6RezZtm2N0oXO4/Hvar PJNLcf1tFAv6M6ztjNDzjHRwGOqRi/dv3mbfDEIeHhKaYHJwDa+WRsqaqKiWeydDYttm B3aqQI9Lv/GWID1DubsvcUgE5Zmn8jP8xC/1BJLPYDvNoEi4Am3wTzDRngK8giH/2VUn k6DLikubttJzOEKsV4n5LmBSRv+GMRArA+jBVC7RQZUqpxAEA+wdlqz+kT6vEL2PIU9Q cKXQ==
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=Lj/IR/rqNz0gvpL3MyUWpfVgtkkk5L28AT9xOS0bXM0=; b=OsTtBOy0SMjCqXExO4EuEklEdLQ/g6T+KC+UCf3dreAyZhlsPp090lvDPKZjffnExH sgM7xzVR3P6Xq9MLTI9ekfHYluQICx8NVXFkswc+1EMANxXCRceJ+fN8cN91vXjC8cnN e2vpyQ+wkn/6eyn05U2Y2iNQEQ9isyx1blL2KbURuemFX7jzvP+bRVLAifBZjwKMiI8s BPwEzofBR7d+Wmg+hC+DpIoELl5eZSi5MVysmqGZ4hJD+wVGdVO73KfBrMe31MigCNy3 98W6g+SSbQKc10eQAySjl27E8BNn3boD6qrYFv0vG8ktBUIf9nN9GkOuiRvsM5zuXrlW 4e6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532nJymD1vOZ3yJRHeWhowCTpfxFWb3R+dvPfZ3+lnwK/raM1DSx 2UEkrxPVxV9Panfn0zIlji0CGbkVNHVuuwp2SACCpQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRsnWhKBSWjBE+VulBndvmm/1hYDyqKW+nwg6bdj+C7EKMBTVVtLF4QeC7fcN+xBAI44vYaIDdxzdXPofnmEQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:959a:: with SMTP id w26mr12205985ljh.79.1595358411440; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:06:51 -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>
In-Reply-To: <594BE12E-D3C4-454F-B7DB-FFF745DF536F@apple.com>
From: Yoav Weiss <yoav@yoav.ws>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 21:06:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CACj=BEib86vLGQyvg+RWqX4EsDnwLGF6xxpSt6Y-WYF-M5zsxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Kinnear <ekinnear@apple.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, Bence Béky <bnc@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="00000000000067604805aaf8530f"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::231; envelope-from=yoav@yoav.ws; helo=mail-lj1-x231.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: titan.w3.org 1jxxbT-0007xc-FR 345d77dee6a24eb139e5efcea3686fd2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reprioritization - implementation intent
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CACj=BEib86vLGQyvg+RWqX4EsDnwLGF6xxpSt6Y-WYF-M5zsxA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37904
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>
+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