Re: Time to refresh HTTP/2?

Martin Thomson <> Mon, 31 August 2020 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B3E63A0B72 for <>; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 17:13:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.749
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.749 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=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=UqT7XQ2d; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=iYGF+YSA
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cRagh6w8rsS5 for <>; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 17:13:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBBA33A0B74 for <>; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 17:13:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1kCXPU-0004VN-92 for; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 00:10:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 00:10:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1kCXPR-0004UX-RB for; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 00:10:53 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <>) id 1kCXPP-0005RV-SA for; Mon, 31 Aug 2020 00:10:53 +0000
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C50B600; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 20:10:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap10 ([]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Sun, 30 Aug 2020 20:10:38 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=vNPZz8YQhTbPkgP/bEjq/4btU7Qb Wqqeta+ZoK4zyno=; b=UqT7XQ2dbx0NdLBhOKB9PCns94SXDZe4HU8ZdCM3X/I0 DctjA03ICY8K8kJU09ckfvI3+l9x/QrMud5aHG1ZM8aAqI/1YJDNK65NF1XejSMq hjhET+ooyBOp1XV7ekRmfgcde/UaypsLUr2jv2iDbL4i3dnO0jqeQHcPgUe8PB4F czIGaqKUvXtN9v6AGnKIyNP8xW6NJTZplQFxTTeclXwwY8R8NrkUDMF8TvcnqSXo z4RaCZUGF6QhmHnvOpnOFQTWjyGUwZJiqcx1U2bAyX/l4YEIjR+vuRoNL4L6+Cy7 jCQlG/3EzPNq3qx6r1IU+W5ptSoXoxKDCqp4ziG3Rg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=vNPZz8 YQhTbPkgP/bEjq/4btU7QbWqqeta+ZoK4zyno=; b=iYGF+YSAtSip6tqQsDtpTZ hAZcfd8gMvzol16WIziZyY4jjOWsr/t1V4WPSeme7Qix2rss1N/K7Wd7z5TVM52Z Av43zMnpNPhgiamYoxHceHjW7gxeK7z/X79LtW43QgAjdnbpflWgzu6GKJiwMiuK yX6g3nWdvQSNBlA2YtxgtKgRyi1YCQywtM8xXsDeeF0Vl/ssNM5q+XoHWuuKrlRM H4wzt/1U8A21OZJkbgX9zbsNbblJACXF55cQHCm3/c7nk+UkoxnNWDt9mEj5XOAJ njQ7b1mhV4driR/Wznd7P5fQI85DqRbO3Ny/Xolo1AQrpSTee36dJt3WmRQbXtDg ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:_T9MXwEYYnPfB8wuWSXm7qcsOqffypTBI-6HnYgcL2ZoTkJ32H4dSQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrudefgedgfeduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtredtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghr thhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepieevveettdelieevkeevgeeuueeltddthedthfehhfdvtdethedv ueeiiedtvdehnecuffhomhgrihhnpehiuggvfhhinhhithgvlhihhhgrughthhgrthhinh hmihhnugdrmhihnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhf rhhomhepmhhtsehlohifvghnthhrohhphidrnhgvth
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:_T9MX5U6N4nLT2sxt30Zewyx2o9OAFnrEguQ8_TOuwJk3XrWhPwFIA> <xmx:_T9MX6In4jk69eDSPg4Pc__jc0V03Cp4wHy91ujEU2a0sqFkyiiE7Q> <xmx:_T9MXyHYIR8xFQpiyGbcGm5Dsl9R2FKlKgMLa8PJSpFl1CbyEDIV7g> <xmx:_j9MX-ghA3AKN2UEmcopgAJqOSWHGrVgxkvTVdQB6ToOFUvU13aAiw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id ACECA20066; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 20:10:37 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-232-g4bdb081-fm-20200825.002-g4bdb081a
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2020 10:10:20 +1000
From: "Martin Thomson" <>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: 1kCXPP-0005RV-SA 8f71785ba91fae997bbd310b2e878493
Subject: Re: Time to refresh HTTP/2?
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/37974
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>

It seems like everyone wants their swing at this.

To be perfectly frank, I wasn't planning on addressing any of these.  It's a long and slippery slope.

But I will start a list and we can discuss where to draw the line. 

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020, at 23:00, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> What about priorities?

I would be opposed to publishing a new version with a replacement priorities scheme before that scheme were proven.  It might be OK to publish a version with text with the priority scheme removed, with a note about it not being interoperable in practice or some such.

Here's some historical info that seems relevant.  The following text appears in the draft, commented out:

> Note that stream dependencies have not yet been validated in practice.  The theory
> might be fairly sound, but there are no implementations currently sending these.  If it
> turns out that they are not useful, or actively harmful, implementations will be requested
> to avoid creating stream dependencies.

While this might be true, I don't want a reprise.

On Sat, Aug 29, 2020, at 00:54, Cory Benfield wrote:
> I'm +1 on this as well. I'd like to see the extensions rolled in,
> along with GREASE. I'm a bit more nervous about the priority changes
> given how relatively young they are.

Cory agrees with me, so I'm probably right....  As for GREASE, I'm reluctant to include new design work, but it might be small enough to meet the cut.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 12:59:03PM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> Actually, I was going to suggest that as well, but mainly to align
> HTTP/2 with the new core specs - it would be good to say how the cleanup
> affects the references from HTTP/2.

I definitely had that in mind.  My plan is to do that once the -core drafts leave the working group (so that there is no further risk of reshuffling.

> Am 28.08.2020 um 13:27 schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> +1 as well. Wouldn't it be an opportunity to also reference (or even merge)
> the extensions such as RFC8441 which adds the ":protocol" pseudo-header ?
I tend to think that 8441 wouldn't make the cut; it's discrete in the same way that the ORIGIN or ALTSVC frames are.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2020, at 21:52, Julian Reschke wrote:
> And it probably should include RFC 8740 ("Using TLS 1.3 with HTTP/2")...

8740 might make the cut.

Just to add to the list:

* midders (or multiple trailers or whatever they are) are something I'm still uncertain about
* a re-design that included better 0-RTT design is probably off the table
* removing h2c is very tempting, with similar rationale to PRIORITY