Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on control stream referencing unopened request stream (#2502)
Robin Marx <notifications@github.com> Thu, 09 May 2019 07:51 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 5AE43120261 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 00:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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 O2KIuzG-0cjk for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 May 2019 00:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-24.smtp.github.com (out-24.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8816212016A for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 May 2019 00:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 09 May 2019 00:51:24 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1557388285; bh=eakl3gJ/JWzQnBuBQ9NxDITPI5B8DVlmPIdR7rJQSE4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=q4v+Q4j9nLX0wt0z2XP3VgnUUQm0T2FlgeGI8KQZKIsN6MoFhCWaFcymENQrkJIR8 Nhu9fDVWjV+TdtA50qVauAKXJE1OOK/9IJNEbBjThGCFn+o6t/Y1n5zlwowUjzRlqh +ONculiRB65/IF9JjV3Scuz/HnWvwGoRPLe3EtH0=
From: Robin Marx <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJKYMV3YT6GX3YLOJ76N24EHHZEVBNHHBR4DCTQ@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2502/490792254@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_5cd3dbfce3be8_5fb43f86276cd96856659"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: rmarx
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/bUi_TodNMwqjT7cBjCpLg_r-6Q8>
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 07:51:39 -0000
Thank you all for the insightful comments :) I guess my main gripe is maybe with the "default" behavior of adding the node as a direct child to the root of the tree. As we have found in our research (1) (and many others besides) this default behaviour (equal weighted round robin) is (by far) the worst behaviour you can get in a web browsing context. A first-come-first-served setup is better in almost every way. A simple compromise might be to change the default behaviour from "add to root with weight 16" to "**add as direct child of the last added node (could be root) with weight 1**" or something similar. This also has plenty of caveats and edge cases, but afaict should give better results in cases where lots goes wrong at the same time (e.g., fast link and high current cwnd with sudden burst of lost priority frame(s)). This would imo greatly reduce the potential impact of an "implicitly_initialized" node in the most common case (lots of higher-priority requests outstanding, which you would interfere with by adding to the root instead). > +1. I also agree that it would be beneficial to call out the strategy (or strategies) that the servers might employ, and if necessary the side-effects of those strategies that the clients should take into consideration. I am also 100% for this. With regards to the alternate priority schemes/changing before RFC: afaict, Pat Meenan's proposal can be implemented using an extension frame (replacing the "normal" PRIORITY frame). At least that's how we are planning on starting to experiment with it soon. In that case, a more complex setup with the unidirectional priority streams etc. might be overkill (sorry @LPardue ;) Anyone think that's not possible? TL;DR I would be in preference of keeping things as they are in general, but changing the default behavior for non-explicitly-prioritized streams. (1): https://speeder.edm.uhasselt.be/www18/ -- 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-490792254
- [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on control st… Robin Marx
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Robin Marx
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Dmitri Tikhonov
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Martin Thomson
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Robin Marx
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… ianswett
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Patrick Meenan
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Patrick Meenan
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Patrick Meenan
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Robin Marx
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Kazuho Oku
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Robin Marx
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Lucas Pardue
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Mike Bishop
- Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] PRIORITY frame on contro… Mike Bishop