Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization)

Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Fri, 19 June 2020 23:19 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 0DFBB3A0F2B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:19:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.748 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 WxH1JJnRLUoe for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:58 -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 EB8473A0F6B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1jmQEm-0007Dg-5K for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:15:56 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:15:56 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1jmQEm-0007Dg-5K@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 <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1jmQEk-0007Cq-Gk for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:15:54 +0000
Received: from mail-wr1-x42a.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42a]) by mimas.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>) id 1jmQEi-0006Z3-US for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:15:54 +0000
Received: by mail-wr1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id c3so11157579wru.12 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=P8v5d3+tWycEanTAvDTuWny+46O7bHjm1OLBx8UvUH8=; b=rVWR3j4M94R9U6tUNvx30gDf93fdaEsItfinVcAmuv8cT/WkYOBlx239ViNWjnwzsv KQ/3YVDT22K9RunANmRJB0TheX18RTVbLknPQsTxA+l9Y1/zCZkzUtkypH7N5d28gfLt SZr+4swzpHtnZxCnXVgFIU9uS6TLIJHapJszceCykRc60fA9Np+NXtd1ReqR2YjVlKW4 psn6+L0FRhr0Mh0U9LBR64mHbQaZ0GyKuD0fjfpGUUBAE6jaw9FnUqdWw23CxdvXURJU Db/coZrOYUQ3D5nAnAhnoX1L7oKVrjESmDuXaenclTrGwP4He8lLhNec04qS4Y1VyPFZ 044g==
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=P8v5d3+tWycEanTAvDTuWny+46O7bHjm1OLBx8UvUH8=; b=QkUGb5wiMvaNSQc7t4guZIVPd7Ww6a8HHqqx2BMtMh7WYgp/UhXkxFXzMyQmLkm5ej iHynrJ/fU1MTFUD2lo/5noxdu2q2FJh6PQ2CZH1ItcmYOeQ3GyfKQSImjIriP6gUtKyS nCNg2SO/m7EewNCNYDy1G7dSZYi8RXUJXz6h+hl7j8k69Ox7sQe9Em6D2KHX4nN4kfkQ 4wHiOUyjbB41ixZfeRztTg4lmRCOHzlqTT59eZMKe8bg29X8U0gW2Q3FIspRkohiWna+ EHzY1PQh6FVPMUDcw0BckMZDJN6npERHBiBIJmR4nRHi3eJLjp3xaaiCCUCrzXAOhToR Jx+w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UWtaCp0MiDh0WOoFA1MqsUicaC2ATGIc2SO4iRMqcxlVSmeZW R3bBqhqJ5/wEmlByTaLe1zPwtq37Rufft26C7T0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHle5ZaB++GPzoKbE8vsMYE+kZle48BhgIIutGHdooAf/Ao2b4DYcSGcILIyBVUCJRp5tWAbo3eDJi/bData8=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4008:: with SMTP id n8mr6324195wrp.82.1592608541548; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 16:15:41 -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> <CALGR9oZgE7ZfXdoYdUh9LUYC1fi8fMUyyTpvmV3GF7Z6Oxgg1g@mail.gmail.com> <20200609144428.GC22180@lubuntu> <CAJV+MGyuhxx=P6kZKktuREeq5pipZjxmwWP4jE_Sxhj_+krU2Q@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzx_eg84V7UefOtSF+NHGHnTg7h-9n5bsRZRXxBqsaOkfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEip6+7AunFsD=6qM5rsgrTfg6bRctOMu1gOe-KVjAW7Dw@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzyv03VH9=+J=M2yY0EwCXp7HMWsXYaXOE=WYGDKBHdaVA@mail.gmail.com> <2C53D8AF-EFA8-42A3-9666-955A054468DB@greenbytes.de> <CACj=BEic2qzMXEfcsKS9CYnowChc-kMRjH66d3uKs+pqTz9Fug@mail.gmail.com> <4E0E8032-A903-46A2-A131-F1F4DE3CC037@greenbytes.de> <CACj=BEjOC-8S38U36Jw+Yb7yH_BZjxBkeLE6dLWH=8VMyBW80Q@mail.gmail.com> <ECF2C350-5D53-4E3B-9AAC-2F7E3FD4B528@greenbytes.de> <CACj=BEh53ZWj1UV6tNDaWPiuHbmbVmkYimu_rdYcYm06dZJAAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGzesbFRZFGK5SUM70HJrx3fdJ8AAGGqmwqDQhrL3eFmUw@mail.gmail.com> <CACj=BEiVPfOPGPuSu-tx5AovWwvTEwjCTqEooMq2muEteHZLAw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJV+MGyrKyhamN3WY+HE1i_0hKWQo6kuLe-6hO53YMrHPbto=w@mail.gmail.com> <CAM37g06T_U+Th83D7sH3S_LB-b_9TcaX5b9nDSFE8Z-x5U+c9A@mail.gmail.com> <CANatvzwEr97ec5h=YOZopFt2ou+vabthD+YMRwh0aESKy2jkkA@mail.gmail.com> <CAM37g05x7hZ=AfAicFHmPBxtz4VJhH14cCF2MKcRpfvq4_y1Cw@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9oZdQnmdVo5hhA68r6CtRtDZUCRpBfbZjqQy=ggv9xmfeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+3+x5HRMOD_XRUpGRqFY=pttj=izswzSLdSDKuKXhAPCx6wfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALGR9obh6GmU2nToNwq1XWMJ9JG6VpyE-sg7RTjeL3fETJk-VQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+3+x5F+DYo-XUH_F+Nqn1sOTB2Gh+WjJYbH++T6x6eL2LWL2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+3+x5F+DYo-XUH_F+Nqn1sOTB2Gh+WjJYbH++T6x6eL2LWL2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 00:15:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oYuRAP8iQVJ0iO-g+Qa6itMJcdyj=47CAjuWVeC0qPYZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000062a2b205a8781277"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42a; envelope-from=lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42a.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.8
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, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1jmQEi-0006Z3-US df1fe27b8a83bbd56f7a14cf429c9455
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Priority implementation complexity (was: Re: Extensible Priorities and Reprioritization)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CALGR9oYuRAP8iQVJ0iO-g+Qa6itMJcdyj=47CAjuWVeC0qPYZg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/37804
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>

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:51 PM Tom Bergan <tombergan@chromium.org> wrote:

> The way I think of it is that reprioritzation can turn bad pushes into
> neutral pushes, but it can't turn bad or neutral pushes into good pushes. I
> validated the bad -> neutral hypothesis in a contrived / toy HTTP/2 sandbox
> a few years ago. What's missing is a really convincing case where push is a
> win (many good pushes). Despite a lot of looking, the only real-world case
> I've found is that paper from Akamai a few years back.
>
> I think my last email was too strong w.r.t. your above question. I don't
> think we should decide the push question now and I don't think
> reprioritzation alone is a motivating factor to maintain push. All I meant
> to say is: I believe that reprioritization is helpful for push, assuming we
> keep both.
>

Apologies. I could have phrased my question more clearly, the original
intent was "Assume that server push is here to stay. There may be cases
where reprioritizing in-flight pushes is useful, so does that make the
reprioritization feature more attractive on the whole?".

Regardless I think your additional description still stands. A server could
unwittingly push something at a higher priority than the client wants,
affecting the priority of things it does want. Without reprioritization the
only recourse is to starve the pushed stream of flow control or to close
the stream. I just don't know how often that would occur in practice.

Cheers
Lucas