IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on control stream referencing unopened request stream (#2502)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 23:30 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 BBAC11200DF for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.464
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.464 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_20=1.546, 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cdYDFnxue0H1 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-4.smtp.github.com (out-4.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.195]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 259F61200DE for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 16:30:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 16:30:33 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557444633; bh=EeQeFz3IUZ/wHu1ZaZQMDMMuP1XAiZ0SADz+Zx1ZOg4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=jnEgjCNstQ4RpzNRMOUqbrzKNd0OY//dsw/nZceTHGrr6KJDhuuhqe/wxsnxUOty+ o7gv3fVcLEuhQtI/FZC4P/Al6YQI2xgs+sJ4dLY4Ph6xx8mIQCRO9groJ23e4KhHYw 33Q9+XKos1a8/WksUOPT5pv5CLKPiwJay3J2oUvU=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKY2FCHSKVFGPEB5VIF24HVJTEVBNHHBR4DCTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2502/491102667@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2502@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2502@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on control stream referencing unopened request stream (#2502)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cd4b819409da_79d13ff747ecd960270ca"; 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/ZZ4y_QJM98RhB_aic3kBxXQpPfI>
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: Thu, 09 May 2019 23:30:36 -0000

Thank you for the answers. Your observations sound right to me.

>  If each group could be tagged as round-robin vs serialized it could eliminate the need to build a deeper tree.

That's definitely one way going forward, though I think we'd lose the ability to express certain types of trees that can be represented in HTTP/2.

> If the cost to boost priority was 1 RTT per resource but they could all be done in parallel it would be fine.

This would be the case. And the cost is incurred only when there is a packet loss. To be precise, there would be 1 RTT penalty to synchronize the prioritization tree for every loss event of a packet carrying PRIORITY frame.

-- 
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/2502#issuecomment-491102667

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email