[quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 priorities are too complex for a majority of implementers to implement (#2739)

ianswett <notifications@github.com> Tue, 21 May 2019 23:11 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACC69120058 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 16:11:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
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_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75eRhGfjEBKS for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 16:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-11.smtp.github.com (out-11.smtp.github.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 348E512001A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2019 16:11:43 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:11:42 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1558480302; bh=OdYoYmSuupuLw0iQJ29ugCUOmihtae2JoF5sA/6h5g4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:Subject:List-ID:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Unsubscribe:From; b=uGmnHi/5WHGoGd2aCbGj+CGIc0fW+94qsKaX0ZoF9OwJYoHsdEM/QukDlXwuEP0lj 3CISQ15b/IYlVA+5vLGd65Edd2oeeTD6Tjjg25gdBgsRHS8Nz6O+ZO6/IqM+Fs+VeC gJNamlVp3tJ/Qw7Px2GrwAMEFEY+17mY7k9ujuVc=
From: ianswett <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK4G3IFKOUWW3IGNWYF26G4C5EVBNHHBVIUZ3Y@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2739@github.com>
Subject: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 priorities are too complex for a majority of implementers to implement (#2739)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ce485ae75009_36af3fa7b18cd960233489"; 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/S1XzmwyE7lnVPQ72JiYz6X8M5CE>
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: Tue, 21 May 2019 23:11:45 -0000

A number of implementers have indicated a lack of interest(ie: I'll do something else for cases when I control both client and server) or complete unwillingness to implement existing HTTP/3 priorities.

I believe a core goal of HTTP/3 should be that the majority of implementations will support the specified priority scheme.  If that's not true, we should move priorities to an extension, but that may be a regression relative to HTTP/2, which is unappealing.

Measurement indicates that <<50% of servers implement H2 priorities(https://github.com/andydavies/http2-prioritization-issues) and clients use a fixed scheme they designed once and never changed. 

A key comment I hear repeatedly is that the tree structure is too complex, in particular requests depending upon requests.  The idea of proxy to origin using groups/placeholders for backend connections keeps coming up, but it's not actively used at the moment based on all input I've heard, so I heard a large amount of support for either making that an extension or optional in the same way push is optional in H3.

This is somewhat of a meta-issue, but it keeps coming up and I believe it's extremely important to achieve consensus on something that will be implemented.  As everyone keeps reminding me, that's where we failed with H2.  Let's not let a coin flip decide this time.

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