Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Zero-weighting (#2723)

Robin Marx <> Sun, 16 June 2019 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BBEE1200B7 for <>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:20:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.009 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=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 nip2S0tNwH7E for <>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:20:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC199120072 for <>; Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:19:58 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560712799; bh=xnhWPutaPaXNSCG7wXWD9wvQiTzIy6v5VO46TPlGgx4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=YEsageIe7XOgIiQQNhilOZnMidPXVDjm+Upt1wlCa+LPUI1d8eqhx3hlqQ8IBRKuR UETrNyyVmTK7F1kAwG9lKhoWYTP4y+vXkFM83vlnBdhmFLej1OfNHvpd3m4PTI09Gz JFnze2/mk6SFUejEurqgHKIjy5hmOBnbLVr18jo4=
From: Robin Marx <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2723/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 Zero-weighting (#2723)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d06965ec0f65_52df3f98e98cd96411678d4"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: rmarx
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: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 19:20:02 -0000

I just wanted to come back to this PR for a moment.

Seeing as we are now seemingly moving closer to HTTP/2 with the re-introduction of exclusive priorities and sending PRIORITY frames on the control stream, I feel that maybe there might be room for this to be re-considered.

I originally proposed it as a counterpart to #2700 that was much more closely aligned to the typical H2 setup. Now that the Orphan Placeholder has been merged, I think it makes sense to consider the 0-weight semantics in a broader setting. While it is still a departure from HTTP/2 in general, I feel it's close enough to be considered in the QUIC wg. 

(sidenote: it seems that the nodes under the orphan placeholder are still sent in Round Robin fashion rather than FIFO, which I thought we agreed is sub-optimal as default behaviour. Any idea if this was intentional @MikeBishop? If the orphan gets FIFO semantics, this aligns with the 0-weighting in this proposal).

If there is interest, I can look into maybe also incorporating @DaanDeMeyer's suggestion of making it symmetrical for weights of 255 as well. 

I am currently finishing up a body of experiments comparing various prioritization schemes, and this is one of them. I should have some concrete numbers to share in the coming weeks. If it is decided that we do not immediately want to make progress on this (e.g., it should be decided by the HTTP wg), I would appreciate the PR to remain open until we can discuss the measurement results. 

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