IETF Logo Mail Archive

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)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Wed, 05 June 2019 01:57 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CA112017C for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.007
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.007 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_32=0.001, 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.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 nK-s16j2T77s for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-22.smtp.github.com (out-22.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.205]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 382A9120086 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Jun 2019 18:57:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2019 18:57:39 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1559699859; bh=yxkXMwxRBIrJg4muG1Yi7mFcWzOqhxNvT+g036pJJS8=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=w2cgk3BvlnTVlGVFih1zKf9w4OJdCD9uEx7WTNLdXQvJS5ZHd6L2BCHV1h1YGWc+b rE9lUcEN24YttkrIsINF7wOev3BgVnZqFACoqY8ubDKCMrgW/qb88xGMxvGd/viVIG +EZVscH+5rE0ou7kGqUdGyJTrx5dLXsIZjzgF9ts=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2JBFIRKIQ44Z54JB53ARKBHEVBNHHBVK576I@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2754/498908852@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2754@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2754@github.com>
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_5cf721939eff0_2ee43fa10e8cd964262321"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/8EYPxNrrTRCsVRzeGfL3ZV0yiWE>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2019 01:57:43 -0000

@kazuho sorry for the confusion, I was attempting to say that HTTP/3 priorities were different from HTTP/2 priorities, and that was a negative.  I just corrected my comment to say HTTP/3.

@LPardue your concerns are well-founded, but I think that's an existing problem and not a result of a recent change?  I previously mentioned(verbally) that tree maintenance should be a longer period of time(ie: 3 MSL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_segment_lifetime ?), but I realize even that may not be sufficient for QUIC and instead we should use something like 3*PTO?

I also think attaching streams to streams is inherently dangerous and much more dangerous in QUIC than HTTP/2, which is why I want to change HTTP/3 priorities to never have streams depend upon streams.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2754#issuecomment-498908852

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email