Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Lessen the divergence from the HTTP/2 prioritization scheme by requiring all PRIORITY frames to be sent on the control stream (#2754)

Lucas Pardue <> Thu, 23 May 2019 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FC95120075 for <>; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:36:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.393
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.393 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PbscdciIiIo0 for <>; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:36:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC94012002F for <>; Thu, 23 May 2019 03:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 03:36:02 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1558607762; bh=DiJ4609gU7WcO/+6IBpboxlaXiEDmbwBEiqZqUC8oyM=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=uNaMYibl2/1CKguzwPG4YKZdVrhFTWgQvxowt6XUxmt2JcH4V1s6thNqqrhV5i5Jv UIdfBBQTtw+eOtct0s5Mcu2kBRIlGvfHNsy6Bbxw8G8EAHbVqNbSeUwbFzUmonHebr uLW53nZPSV8ONkfaPu7iJpJfAbUgFEPiXhyR1mpM=
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2754/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Lessen the divergence from the HTTP/2 prioritization scheme by requiring all PRIORITY frames to be sent on the control stream (#2754)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce67792d8be8_ea43fc57accd95c24283b"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: LPardue
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 May 2019 10:36:06 -0000

> Yeah. I think we share the view that the approach proposed will have the same pros and cons that the prioritization scheme of H2 has. I think that's a good thing, because it helps people use the same approach when using the prioritization scheme.

I have a nagging feeling, the QUIC streams can close in non-deterministic order from the remote peer perspective. This risks a H3 priority scheme that looks similar to H2 on paper but behaves quite differently. In the worst case this requires holding more state on the server in order to increase the chances that the client and server have similar global views.  

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: