IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] NUM_PLACEHOLDERS MUST NOT be zero (#2753)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 31 May 2019 05:11 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 77235120048 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:11:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.009
X-Spam-Level:
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: 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 0KpBxyi4Zxz6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-1.smtp.github.com (out-1.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.192]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7625312003F for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 22:11:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1559279480; bh=6ITpibbV/mTmZRYKmgburRr/fp1YVcnjRvl7rj6MK5Q=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=aTpT0ZNX6NHtKIkY9X2A1akb6o/ITHxUv/8zdkVQ2UebYNg0jKjuWQ2mYsyHBOGHm XGkv4Yj117ImqhUwCGkJ9HJDkcHc7UlR4rR/aJrrdppZ8Wm114685FP9wyjjKp2wpX z+3CylrTvNmb8F/nJtMTAfwZV9hhM9bAxQ8u3ny4=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4JO2J3QN2WVURYLH527XU7REVBNHHBVK26ZM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2753/497577780@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2753@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2753@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] NUM_PLACEHOLDERS MUST NOT be zero (#2753)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf0b778d4df5_d243f88b64cd9604581df"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
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/9kCLxeK8w85-P7cSpUUs2Slo3iY>
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: Fri, 31 May 2019 05:11:24 -0000

@ianswett 
> Currently, only Firefox would be required to change their prioritization scheme if the number of placeholders is 0. Based on information I've seen(ie: the Cloudflare presentation and my own anecdotal experience), it's not clear their use of placeholders is any better than a scheme that does not use them, so I think it's possible Firefox could change their priority scheme and it would be faster.

Fair point. I agree that placeholders becomes no longer a prerequisite for browsers once we bring back the "exclusive" bit (as proposed by #2754).

OTOH, I am still not sure if there is a necessity to diverge from the design we have in HTTP/2 and start requiring clients to take the server's settings into consideration when building a prioritization tree. We currently recommend servers to set `SETTINGS_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS` to some sensible value other than zero, and given that, as I commented in https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2753#issuecomment-495487631, suggesting server's to ignore placeholder IDs out of the server's advertised range might be a simpler solution.

-- 
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/2753#issuecomment-497577780

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email