Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 is lacking priorities (#3198)

Lucas Pardue <> Wed, 06 November 2019 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B6EF12002F for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:11:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7SCnoOZtZWj7 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A4CF120047 for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C30E961C3A for <>; Wed, 6 Nov 2019 14:11:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1573078278; bh=+YOILyfVER05eJVxj83r0FLSnLS2nmMlAWJrBOROaEk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=KCh8oUD8PHXFEqPmCzijV0gotTGEtibDt2wmOY5aOLSLrWuyDhY1BQA93GZwVKGim hCc/P7/aqAPpJETyggWFyc1iKxbnj4Kr+wRAkqI7G34/P6in20yuvjjNs6x8ICzAeE hSveH0iELGefVI34EJd6kpIGYWzXHSf5SsXpuSg4=
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 14:11:18 -0800
From: Lucas Pardue <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3198/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 is lacking priorities (#3198)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dc345068d934_1e03f9f6f0cd96c1228dd"; 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
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: Wed, 06 Nov 2019 22:11:23 -0000

Request order is an implicit signal. In the absence of anything else I would borrow the text from RFC 7540

... input to a prioritization process.  It does not guarantee any particular processing or transmission order for the stream relative to any other stream.  An endpoint cannot force a peer to process concurrent streams in a particular order...
As discussed elsewhere, a sane default recommendation for servers based on request order might be useful.

But I hope we as a group can come up with a slightly better more complete answer. 

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