Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04.txt)
Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> Wed, 20 November 2019 19:18 UTC
Return-Path: <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C627812008D for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:18:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 E4SJO7l2AUxi for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2c]) (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 4F8F8120020 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:18:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2c.google.com with SMTP id b16so433813vso.10 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:18:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=seXsJN2/dE+2iPfTWvZwtzlCu/SsIcevwfjEC5NcbJY=; b=RqiYKMeS10MinVa2qJjpbq2bZD/lXmvrnDeUGZlnagDFXaISzcL/4Tf8DgB6TidmIJ fXmLWb9ZGUH+nPtDsQvQ90kuwgdHsMKQ8xx4cCkZDyAq7TtP4fcfqAdDJhK8AddJTx9f nU0hI7MyUaZubbTtQNqOB7f2p7nXflDH3tao/FN4WPDNAgoqP+CY+0ckj3C28mz7LN/T 58XenRKD+fT0vHqpvn3HsysFzf79OPNT6C/NEjxqh47b29dAk2U3Cks+jmJQ5ZNg9FLK 5MnjkSEhg8WTH3sR9uIxuIsyynDksqb9p39iV3mpCCd9qprpoU7CTGbMA197cYmG/WYc 6cCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=seXsJN2/dE+2iPfTWvZwtzlCu/SsIcevwfjEC5NcbJY=; b=XLma8q7b+7THNBZX6HZdQLCEy0Zh7KVM1YjuexHl8C26VzJciP5dcx/9htLIOIOFNO KIGOZ2Q9ch3l9VOY1dac3/QbkhY/bzSuJpnQ7yAIXvjNWrK6wha+x/lWKKuLorTF9ZyL R2vKPcXl/L8ql+IVbp8PJcgzqYgdv46ZbWus+kFYRPqQ/Pxqrm8bSeIkpUubHod5TC4d b+91G300Dpi5JM4wEqlFQYa9du45xqazpnZ1lltamb+zAFIJ47RS6NxA5TudbQPNIZ8M g2j+4xjNnH08e42zFXx898ZtzPwTNMd9lmgTHooa8M1F49COwzP5hsTSkXE5ejYAzgvb e3Ug==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWmgbwjnSzEVBHPATt3YRZrawzYBuFeNivvwRdFWjmVvkLiqdpk /VmFd+0rNTzyRvPc5NcImfpAXMxw/AdRuIi5xBE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzC5K9ZGEHkIy6EK367awx4UAlVs2tf2vUtgGBSLlNgUr4pL1yKlyClI2H/tYF6OxAYzX7z9yz4s2V7DhPN6Nk=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:2041:: with SMTP id q1mr2961977vsr.15.1574277526336; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 11:18:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157425081947.30550.7403247942771684795.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CANatvzyk6xaDby-VVvtuOJ66=YPMqynB9=WMAMxYPxGXYa=BPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAN1APddw53xtus9Z86H4rw2CRXA3MR+fxhLWPf3Bh_=qB-O7Aw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAN1APddw53xtus9Z86H4rw2CRXA3MR+fxhLWPf3Bh_=qB-O7Aw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:18:34 +0000
Message-ID: <CALGR9obRoQ56Jcf_UMW0qiHgGmeRt1y8+8A_8T55XrtgUsWR1g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04.txt)
To: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000bc3a3d0597cc0cc7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/8d9im1aXvX38u44Ix0hlz2hHbLQ>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 19:18:49 -0000
Hi Mikkel, To comment as a co-author but speaking only for myself: On Wed, 20 Nov 2019, 20:57 Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen, <mikkelfj@gmail.com> wrote: > Looking forward to digging further into this. > > This is not a feedback in the actual design, only the document structure > and presentation. While this may come across a bit negative, I’m really > happy with simplifying the priority scheme of HTTP/2.. > > Some quick observation when approaching the document initially. I writing > this before having a full grasp of the concepts because that is the only > time to provide a newcomer perspective. > Thanks for taking the time to review, fresh eyes are great. > I think the document could be reorganised and much earlier specify how it > achieves prioritisation and use less text (initially) on HTTP/2 by mere > stating the the scheme can work with both HTTP/1, 2, 3 and possibly future > versions while stating that special mechanisms can be used to opt-out of > existing HTTP/2, and leave it at that. > I agree here. The present document is an amalgamation of several doc, this has acted as a mechanism to support the design team and improve the iteration seed. As a specification we can make improvements here, both in structure and modularity. > After reading 1/3 of document, I still have no clue how the priority > scheme works (except I have some guess based on earlier ideas that have > floatet) and I have had to deal with a lot of HTTP/2 legacy that I am not > necessarily interested in. HTTP/3 doc has also move away from implicit > HTTP/2 familiarity, at least last time I checked. > To reinterpret you point, I think that the concepts of urgency and precedence would benefit from better description (issues #31[1] and #32[2]). But I also wonder if you are saying that there is too much or too little HTTP/2 specific/related content? Or am I missing out on your point here? > The document talks about intermediate hop reprioritisation without making > clear what that is or what purpose it serves. I can only assume load > balancers and reverse proxies. From a QUIC background that also leaves me > wondering what that means - since each hop is necessarily also end to end, > unless there is an extension wrapper frame, but that makes no sense. > The intent is to address the HTTP semantic layer but dip into HTTP version-specifics where necessary. We rely on readers being familiar with HTTP semantic concepts and terminology but can probably do a better job of referencing. Since QUIC has no concept of priority, but the serialisation of HTTP does and is ultimately coupled to the transport layer, it can be a bit tricky to pick the subject. Happy to take some suggestions on specific ways to improve here > Once I got to the business end of the document, the document starts by > telling which headers not send when it is not at all clear what those > headers are about in th first place. > > It’s also confusing what a protocol specific frame means, or why it cannot > all be done with HTTP headers. > It would help to point to a specific section or paragraph. RFC 7540 Section 8 and HTTP/3 draft 24 section 4.1 detail message exchanges - I don't especially feel the need to duplicate text in this document but accept that it might help to reference these in the text. Cheers Lucas
- Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (Fwd:… Kazuho Oku
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Martin Thomson
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Roy T. Fielding
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Martin Thomson
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Robin MARX
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Kazuho Oku
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Lucas Pardue
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Martin Thomson
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Kazuho Oku
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Stefan Eissing
- Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (… Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen