Return-Path: 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 3A927120106 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:09:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.997 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 HvNX4vBNpnyf for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-x535.google.com (mail-ed1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::535]) (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 A18FA12010E for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-x535.google.com with SMTP id r12so7343153edo.5 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:09:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=anwPj4PltZ+abKm3TVXIdp2TirBlN9bpoVSz0cwByxI=; b=eDRLxOHx3Tj2sUup8ZvNyga0ZlF5TDCyY7d4wQCl5YeZFjDuW43QNNpUUZf4eLneRL +yGNKEsafeE3lll/gDk2UZJbwGX5zHeiLkZLSbaXEL8r/j6+NUoy3+aX2K+SgDDC74Zp StaSBpbELX4NJdyJ9C7S9gUwiQCikf6Zbpoq+nUxGQxRgHJPuJLlKjVcfiLxszzUohs9 pdJ0ED8GQHiCtR1KL4Y+ox50xAvN/YMoamjC696ynYtOJQLVjC9UuYOf1T5vLXgcEzeP /eHyxfVK1dcXu9jfZJ4vsCsH2m9Vqpa0Cmz+YGAYyYvAxLVxly6fdnK9+eGlKVs8fzKU DSGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=anwPj4PltZ+abKm3TVXIdp2TirBlN9bpoVSz0cwByxI=; b=Xm9/C02FuEOR38a9GhPtMa9DQF83yYYJVnCO4XHC2TtGARwOoKTkRLhrJnB737zSx8 buwjhyRxi5vHhfOkvG5MwwpHUFLTQ++moFCoaRIB2tZEcMxZDw05F6syLaUcvDfWAOsa 0xvHTBW0kckIxR9GU394o9EwUTe6yHzBMxSIXYPYsPs8ZgZzImM5YkYDmoUxA1WXE8e2 ttcw4mgGkbFZgpO8lmhG8MzzWIT6plAQD0wUU/JinkKpbPyWSo70/6ba9x/F6SX0Fqjr yjQ0Z93Zl4Nnf4irpj4hPfTeobu8Lob3EbwTBE7Qh9Gx15ifYxKJdCG58DgW2eMmgjnF +NyQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUAXT/R3h2aoSB/ubI7n+CB6NnHCDHa1kS037EYl+jtIRBzq+4N IuwFEserWTpmKLDh0wUIMdcc8iKwmd/Hgf8wlIU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwidyFcudDk42PSo0gkps9OiaAlvr13JRt6UDsCkgTpHEgaviJ7M2gYgmZB59tluBpdQqVh+/oE4Q6oJlfsbxA= X-Received: by 2002:a50:b635:: with SMTP id b50mr15654624ede.293.1566043767292; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 05:09:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 1058052472880 named unknown by gmailapi.google.com with HTTPREST; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 08:09:26 -0400 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Mikkel_Fahn=C3=B8e_J=C3=B8rgensen?= In-Reply-To: References: <5E8935DC-6FB5-40F8-A843-1B3991D08CB9@mnot.net> X-Mailer: Airmail (420) MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 08:09:26 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Call for consensus: HTTP/2 Priorities To: Jana Iyengar , Mark Nottingham Cc: Lars Eggert , IETF QUIC WG Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000073c8f305904efa62" Archived-At: X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 12:09:30 -0000 --00000000000073c8f305904efa62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" +1 On 17 August 2019 at 00.08.06, Jana Iyengar (jri.ietf@gmail.com) wrote: +1 to removing the current priorities from HTTP/3. On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:49 PM Mark Nottingham > wrote: > In Montreal, we had a discussion about priorities, where the outcome was > that people in the room agreed to defer to the HTTP Working Group regarding > whether HTTP/3 should ship with something compatible with HTTP/2 priorities > in it: > > https://github.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/master/ietf105/minutes.md#h3-priorities > > Since then, the HTTP Working Group has come to consensus that it does not > believe we should do so: > https://www.w3.org/mid/00CD4B65-7015-45F6-9F18-624B0DB7A501@mnot.net > > This consensus call is to confirm this approach in this WG. In practical > terms, it means we will remove the current HTTP/2-aligned priorities > machinery from HTTP/3. It does NOT necessarily mean that HTTP/3 will ship > without any form of priorities; just not this one. Doing so will resolve a > number of outstanding issues, and make way for a replacement scheme, > currently under discussion in a design team in the HTTP Working Group. > > Please respond by the middle of next week; we'd like to move forward with > this resolution. > > Kind regards, > > -- > Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/ > > --00000000000073c8f305904efa62 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable = +1


On 17 August 2019 at 00.08.06, Jana Iyengar (jri.ietf@gmail.com) wrote:

+1 to removing the current priorities from HTTP/3.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:49 PM Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>= wrote:
In Montreal, we had a discussion about priorities, where the outcome was that people in the room agreed to defer to the HTTP Working Group regarding whether HTTP/3 should ship with something compatible with HTTP/2 priorities in it:
=C2=A0 https://gi= thub.com/quicwg/wg-materials/blob/master/ietf105/minutes.md#h3-priorities

Since then, the HTTP Working Group has come to consensus that it does not believe we should do so:
=C2=A0 https://www.w3.org/mid/00= CD4B65-7015-45F6-9F18-624B0DB7A501@mnot.net

This consensus call is to confirm this approach in this WG. In practical terms, it means we will remove the current HTTP/2-aligned priorities machinery from HTTP/3. It does NOT necessarily mean that HTTP/3 will ship without any form of priorities; just not this one. Doing so will resolve a number of outstanding issues, and make way for a replacement scheme, currently under discussion in a design team in the HTTP Working Group.

Please respond by the middle of next week; we'd like to move forward with this resolution.

Kind regards,

--
Mark Nottingham=C2=A0 =C2=A0https://www.mnot.net/

--00000000000073c8f305904efa62--