Comments on Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP

Glenn Strauss <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com> Thu, 31 March 2022 05:28 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 B62FA3A174D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 22:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.66
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.66 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 2YBw9gvUZX80 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 22:28:03 -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 0E1713A00B2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 22:28:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1nZnJT-0003dn-35 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 05:25:39 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 05:25:39 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1nZnJT-0003dn-35@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from www-data by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com>) id 1nZnJR-0003d2-Lf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 05:25:37 +0000
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 <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com>) id 1nZnG6-0003b3-C1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 05:22:10 +0000
Received: from smtp1.atof.net ([52.86.233.228]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com>) id 1nZnG4-0006Lk-Vr for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 31 Mar 2022 05:22:10 +0000
X-Spam-Language: en
X-Spam-Relay-Country:
X-Spam-DCC: B=MGTINTERNET; R=smtp1.atof.net 1170; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1
X-Spam-RBL:
X-Spam-PYZOR: Reported 0 times.
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 01:21:42 -0400
From: Glenn Strauss <gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Cc: kazuhooku@gmail.com, lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com
Message-ID: <YkU6IoXeg470P45G@xps13>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=52.86.233.228; envelope-from=gs-lists-ietf-http-wg@gluelogic.com; helo=smtp1.atof.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1nZnG4-0006Lk-Vr b88825890dfd909c1de9cbde9448b7a5
X-caa-id: 2a1a1497d9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Comments on Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/YkU6IoXeg470P45G@xps13>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/39924
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>

Comments on Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-12

HTTP/2 SETTINGS frame in the original RFC7540 spec contains
  SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH
This is a logical, boolean flag to enable an optional-use feature.

draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-12 has had multiple revisions with name
changes for a new setting, and the current proposed name is
  SETTINGS_NO_RFC7540_PRIORITIES
with an *inverted boolean value*, which if set to *true* results in
indicating a desire to *disable* use of RFC7540 HTTP/2 PRIORITY frame.

I am a developer mocking up draft-ietf-httpbis-priority.
From my perspective, in order to follow a logical opt-in to enable use
of optional features, I prefer the following proposal: new SETTINGS
  SETTINGS_ENABLE_PRIORITY
  SETTINGS_ENABLE_PRIORITY_UPDATE
each named after the respective HTTP/2 frame type PRIORITY
and (proposed) PRIORITY_UPDATE.  These are named in similar pattern to
SETTINGS_ENABLE_PUSH feature, associated with HTTP/2 frame PUSH_PROMISE.

Similar to when a TLS client might send TLS early data, an HTTP/2 client
might optimistically send any of the above frames prior to receiving the
HTTP/2 server connection preface.  An HTTP/2 server may ignore unknown
frame types, so a client could determine that a server ignored those
early frames if the HTTP/2 server connection preface does not enable the
SETTINGS feature for supporting the (optional) frame type.  I think that
this is a good convention for optional features:
  SETTINGS_ENABLE_<feature>
and optional features using new frame types tend to have the new frame
type named after the feature the new frame type supports.

For the existing HTTP/2 PRIORITY frame, a client would not definitively
know if PRIORITY is supported unless the server were to send
SETTINGS_ENABLE_PRIORITY, but existing support for HTTP/2 frame type
PRIORITY is not widespread, and use of the HTTP/2 PRIORITY frame is
deprecated in the draft being discussed: draft-ietf-httpbis-priority.

Cheers, Glenn