IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Priority in QUIC Transport (#104)

Mark Nottingham <notifications@github.com> Tue, 24 January 2017 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <bounces+848413-a050-quic-issues=ietf.org@sgmail.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 17FCA12955B for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:39:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.601 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_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 gwadAkYwoq8o for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from o11.sgmail.github.com (o11.sgmail.github.com [167.89.101.202]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89C9C129555 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:39:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; h=from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:list-id:list-archive:list-post:list-unsubscribe; s=s20150108; bh=IgZhkNT68GhaUNhNDClS1MAhTUA=; b=o6RkaQ6yHQLmV3mW WRw5j9MkTctDMLVfoVeOpGPYo5d/pqL07D+suYwXwJIjdMk/q8P/Bf18DUy23SlJ kpNIfrLGsYXNtBwWz8jOKxb+BXatxz4DNMwyXPqzLbkB3mYIornPapXiKnVeP+Ih UwmzB6TJ9o450HXFDnAIqKNslXE=
Received: by filter1119p1mdw1.sendgrid.net with SMTP id filter1119p1mdw1-10735-5886BE4F-1C 2017-01-24 02:39:11.668729962 +0000 UTC
Received: from github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net (github-smtp2b-ext-cp1-prd.iad.github.net [192.30.253.17]) by ismtpd0005p1iad1.sendgrid.net (SG) with ESMTP id elDmsdzzQbWHXRJoEDVZuA for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Jan 2017 02:39:11.712 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 18:39:11 -0800
From: Mark Nottingham <notifications@github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/104/274684894@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/104@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/104@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Priority in QUIC Transport (#104)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5886be4f96ec1_7d7d3fd87f0551301244eb"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: mnot
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-SG-EID: l64QuQ2uJCcEyUykJbxN122A6QRmEpucztpreh3Pak2PgoiBGZ25DjEolv620qzeKFfcJ8QH4uhOHb lDHi3W9Pfgw50lIBYDWQXCctwFaVGWeNc6ctg+msxM8GYLUNs7UyyT+wobdCwQmYnUH3Fkmq5raKJ+ E7xLWDvOHHawDE1h7OD2g//FSwHQl4CfEWNG0WqjGHBG/mR3Oo5BNrkeMAzylzqxfdURRwFJJgPods Y=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/c1Vd_KmVz0qrMzRqyASXZmvLtB8>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Reply-To: quic@ietf.org
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, 24 Jan 2017 02:39:15 -0000

Discussed in Tokyo; no appetite to make wire changes (e.g., PRIORITY frame), but open question about whether QUIC needs to define how applications can affect priority of sent packets. Different application protocols might have vastly difference prioritisation schemes.

-- 
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/104#issuecomment-274684894

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status