Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Lessen the divergence from the HTTP/2 prioritization scheme by requiring all PRIORITY frames to be sent on the control stream (#2754)

Mike Bishop <> Thu, 06 June 2019 23:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF7B2120123 for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:12:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.008
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.008 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_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] 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 Lh0D8uY7YcaW for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F98B12007A for <>; Thu, 6 Jun 2019 16:12:53 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 16:12:52 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1559862772; bh=xOryN+hvd8TJVaYrmxfC+ALgHpSEhp55flK22IJxb08=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=Sd0e+rYWd3p10/GaKdEZbwzmeC0eHTDW6X8V94F7CuYJFMYthjAZuXltUY/FYtaON 5XNSYo01+TJQ9709BFa4E7mZyy7fOKqk0znXLrKsTZl8ujLIbMDkZPJwdsE5LfYM57 ugH9R42T7dy5RT6XQph9LyibG6Hv1FTemtBSt3Bs=
From: Mike Bishop <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2754/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Lessen the divergence from the HTTP/2 prioritization scheme by requiring all PRIORITY frames to be sent on the control stream (#2754)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf99df414cea_53ea3fa96d8cd95c307427"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: MikeBishop
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: Thu, 06 Jun 2019 23:12:55 -0000

@rmarx, the way I'm currently viewing it is that there are two tracks:
- The QUIC WG is gamely plugging along on its charter to replicate HTTP/2 functionality in HTTP/3 modulo changes required by the nature of the QUIC transport.
- In the meantime, the HTTP WG might come up with a way to replace/improve the one in HTTP/2.  When they tell us what they want to use, we'll do it.

With my editor's hat on, only the first is my business unless and until the second one concludes.  As an individual, I can and will go to HTTPbis and advocate for something better.  But on this side of the fence, I still have to make progress on the first in case the second one derails.  #2690, reverting initial PRIORITY and bringing back Exclusive dependencies gets us back closer to HTTP/2 equivalence and had general support at the interim.  So that's our just-in-case position while we see what HTTPbis decides.

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