Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Break up H2 Frame Considerations (#2698)

Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com> Mon, 20 May 2019 09:38 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 3F57E120020 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2019 02:38:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.606
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.606 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_28=1.404, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, 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 SGNZ4DRcYKFS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 May 2019 02:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-21.smtp.github.com (out-21.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71D281200D7 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 May 2019 02:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2019 02:38:10 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558345090; bh=Z+QiZ1IV7svIjdkQLsUfgMgq/dSeb8xlAsXum00A+po=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ATBe3RWaY9QwmI7SO4T/a/vKgpihELtFeIQlxJMznG+qTa094wKli3oYidboFXkbQ FfPWOFTM7mSTeEmthpFC9Ncm4dlG2CcetZVlLr8qmNQgpesk3YUSyJdV3BqT/HpJVF Q50JkIM+Slzcn1KRkC4jY9iakthMtEUsgw6XlFOE=
From: Lucas Pardue <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKZJFDBB4V4G43VBSY5256UAFEVBNHHBU53JAM@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2698/review/239390114@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2698@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/2698@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Break up H2 Frame Considerations (#2698)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce27582a3e44_6ea93fca50ecd95c805358"; 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
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/DnJqYPO7CYE6FTLpG3TwAPEs7Z8>
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: Mon, 20 May 2019 09:38:17 -0000

LPardue commented on this pull request.



> +PRIORITY frame on the request stream, if any, always comes first is explicitly
+stated.
+
+Exclusive prioritization has been removed, since implicitly reprioritizing other
+streams which might or might not exist yet is prone to race conditions even with
+the assumptions used to permit initial PRIORITY frames on request streams.
+
+HTTP/3 permits the prioritization of requests, pushes and placeholders that each
+exist in separate identifier spaces. The HTTP/3 PRIORITY frame replaces the
+stream dependency field with fields that can identify the element of interest
+and its dependency.
+
+### Header Compression Differences
+
+HPACK was designed with the assumption of in-order delivery. A sequence of
+encoded header blocks must arrive (and be decoded) at an endpoint in the same

yeah I was looking at this from the wrong perspective. Header blocks is fine, I take back the suggestion.

-- 
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/pull/2698#discussion_r285505428