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)

ianswett <> Mon, 10 June 2019 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882E01200F3 for <>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.391
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.391 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, 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 ilWueT9VXQcb for <>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7ED01200CD for <>; Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:45:40 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 11:45:39 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1560192339; bh=hXRsGKgm/DB6sX3AQg7P49sq3o6z2aXgI5/Etu4UvvE=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=PR9v6y8dNfTSYcxPyDMjZMpwLy+bYYe/QNgJzpzwUy0s2D2vt3dekmN+4If/uPpdg QyB2azEuhuJdyzeJbPZortTlPKgwizrGlWmGlwtZCsYWl1zYM5oTBscTBY3h9b/xH8 g5bw2Gugyn4jAn857loduYHIRXdDFUGaDo7D94uk=
From: ianswett <>
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_5cfea55363fb1_6e643f98b40cd96086920"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: ianswett
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: Mon, 10 Jun 2019 18:45:43 -0000

@MikeBishop I think those two tracks make sense, though I do think along the way we're making some choices about the best way to change H2 priorities to be more suitable to QUIC and what compromises are and aren't acceptable, which is by its nature a series of compromises.

For example, it seems a defaulting request weight of 1 or 0 would be a more HTTP/2 like solution than adding a default placeholder?  But possibly it doesn't matter that much?

Are there outstanding PRs for the rest of the migration back to more H2-like priorities?

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