IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Mon, 04 February 2013 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 69F7821F88B5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:47:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.386
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.590, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EZJ0DSQtQ871 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 869BD21F87B3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U2PCV-0002Q0-0j for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:47:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:47:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U2PCV-0002Q0-0j@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1U2PCP-0002Nh-3p for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:47:17 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdccac.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.202] helo=homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1U2PCO-0007hW-0t for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 16:47:17 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B2BF1005D for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:46:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type; s=cryptonector.com; bh=x7zwLQ5DNYNbYfnI/XLX lLpnRNU=; b=FJN41R8osROBGGSKE1cMwEB6ixftkvmvLS7vybtX6xHFih/pv+w8 Wa5MQ/+Jrol+Bo28MOSx5Z+zTlvfdNlEbBR67HybRN/ceEtigsdVZ/+WuX/HFkTF w+ErHBgUrTy8NLRNFHDX50b1mjUEnahf2c+KiW1JvRCS5lsgSsf7vBA=
Received: from mail-we0-f177.google.com (mail-we0-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4C3AA10049 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f177.google.com with SMTP id d7so4965984wer.36 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.216.66 with SMTP id oo2mr36433707wjc.4.1359996412883; Mon, 04 Feb 2013 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.39.133 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.39.133 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Feb 2013 08:46:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <510FB175.9030805@treenet.co.nz>
References: <CAA4WUYjiBZpShKKFfHQnixc94aOLrck0oR4ykARB=hF5h8nkfA@mail.gmail.com> <3430.1359961022@critter.freebsd.dk> <510F72CE.8030003@treenet.co.nz> <CDFC6823-BC3E-4F53-A9FA-9F0E7AAF0C12@mnot.net> <510FB175.9030805@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 10:46:52 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOj6daXXJ+i+rVHnu2abgiL1ceRqaW0+vyQ7pAcW32c4QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d163415f1b004d4e8d72e"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.202; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a34.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.325, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1U2PCO-0007hW-0t 199ac47d52b5995b10ec3920c029f6d2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAK3OfOj6daXXJ+i+rVHnu2abgiL1ceRqaW0+vyQ7pAcW32c4QA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16356
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: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Feb 4, 2013 8:05 AM, "Amos Jeffries" <squid3
<squid3@treenet.co.nz>@<squid3@treenet.co.nz>
treenet.co.nz <squid3@treenet.co.nz>> wrote:
> On 4/02/2013 11:01 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote:
> > [...]
> Which goes to show why specifying an algorithm for handling opaque
client-selected prioritization is the wrong way to go about this.
>
> You have presented a good argument for specifying a set of standardized
priority labels with criterion for setting each label.
> eg.
>  Priority 1 - user actioned fetch - requires fast answer
>  Priority 2 - background/automated fetch in user-visible window -
requires fast answer but treat as bulk traffic.
>  Priority 3 - automated software fetch - treat as low-speed traffic.
>  Priority 4 - idle software probe - may drop if necessary.
>
> ... then letting the algorithm designers and implementers free to write
their prioritization algorithms around those definitions.

+1, plus priorities for real-time requests?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email