Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04.txt)
Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2019 07:11 UTC
Return-Path: <kazuhooku@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 73BF71209EE for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:11:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 fUf9xe_xWt-E for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x230.google.com (mail-lj1-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::230]) (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 0CFDB1209D2 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:11:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x230.google.com with SMTP id q2so1975523ljg.7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:11:34 -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=1SP4sQSgsyLCQVhONJtx+4otGC5giBOnLac+FArgpWw=; b=UqMW2yAeO47N2V+jpOm5GP4P0i+3WHgSdeIB7dzKZC9MRqVZA64+4hPhqwuLczLArz eRJf/XTukwZEU5Ey2+hKBFo1k3gKI69hsqRqrCrZ+Hj/dVsrskQX/G3iI7/YR02XrcVF dxTg2PyBw3gi/9dg6ClnRCcISRvZgT1kENHpGNRK5QJceciVhUTKxZlLTGexulOSOMu5 ekRF8jW6L4PFxGJ5+YM64uz6ODWUedlfsSFnR78IgwVgl/rdVUnyOSGG+dz/MNdvniex d8ck+IxU9Ky92Td0gMzgCqy8j8wll7R5qUXt4s6p0Kb4insxjsIxweIHoMM2DHgpfRQn tpEA==
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=1SP4sQSgsyLCQVhONJtx+4otGC5giBOnLac+FArgpWw=; b=hXTNrNr1MDS+eI2aI6tKBcVuGCJRMMEAEqpJ0disuAft9bZXxLAGl/xLsTBuWcLJUI KmU9L2K1Fm1/wJZRzR2i6DwaP9zBksddCJn5mH8yCmePYaBpP7/PT8tG1HDKfRwDssiy 092aidcZvV7mnliQeWQ+vV1rbfG/3W+aGVxy5U+ieXsLLrmXdP4ZbZNDXuUlqx96AAY5 sOFeycdYOh8AwixQF/YAGrWDj1QdfkmKCLruYTFc/F3Ltuos/s5wvAGH/O8VeewR8Hzn cCnBfzCvkG7bsGqequVWPlIPlyPtY/HR21P5VT78M3ginRn5UCanZwXBUn5vgasUBLja bsCA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWqbWZdoAelaht+dTwhO8HQjt//5QFQbd/XzdhGTlKuyVIlkmin gN7M13qZuI5tJk5whFxlbu0vQLccrKGWXAEyhBT8Xs0a2DuWqg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx0pPf+XgyjyaBMDiJ51iXCz34duE0G5JoXyOHpfzVokic4L1ovOcEvTFwHzh1gluRabPHa7OPUiKO5/yhie9Q=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:651c:326:: with SMTP id b6mr5912556ljp.119.1574320293283; Wed, 20 Nov 2019 23:11:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <d651767a-8b6c-4e45-b154-ef1ad0bf34a3@www.fastmail.com> <421180B5-6939-4EB5-B2CA-1A97BA9BAEA9@gbiv.com>
In-Reply-To: <421180B5-6939-4EB5-B2CA-1A97BA9BAEA9@gbiv.com>
From: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 15:11:20 +0800
Message-ID: <CANatvzzxRvfHNjAW+fJ_Mx3Lex_cUoyhtJqAXsiKnmxERuuTPg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Priorities I-D for Thursday HTTPbis meeting (Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04.txt)
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d80ec10597d601e3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/qmdKsOEhRTztblDmtKmW1ub-zRo>
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2019 07:11:41 -0000
2019年11月21日(木) 9:54 Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com>: > I agree with Martin’s comments. We really should emphasize that these are > suggestions for improving the user experience that may need to be adjusted > based on external knowledge by recipients. > > Also, there is a spot in the document where Vary is mentioned as being > appropriate. I don’t agree that Vary is ever appropriate for this feature > because that changes the semantics of the priority in ways that are > terribly unpredictable, nor is content negotiation on the basis of received > Priority a good idea. I would simply require that Priority not be included > in preemptive content negotiation and be done. > Roy, thank you for the review and the suggestion. I think you are correct, I have opened https://github.com/kazuho/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority/pull/119 to address the issue. > > Even with these minor issues, I think this draft is a great improvement > and is ready for adoption by the WG. > > .....Roy > > > > On Nov 21, 2019, at 8:17 AM, Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > > > Kazuho, > > > > Thanks for putting this together. I only looked briefly, but this > appears to faithfully capture what we discussed. > > > > Why did you choose to express this with a dictionary `u=4, i=?1`** > rather than a numeric item `4;i=?1`? > > > > Can we look to simplifying this a little more? I understand that > reprioritization was identified as being important by the design team, but > I don't recall seeing ever any evidence to support that view. Can we split > that piece out and maybe pursue it separately? > > > > I would prefer to frame the way in which priorities are "merged" > (Section 6) differently. I would instead say that the priority information > is input to prioritization decisions that endpoints/intermediaries/etc.. > make. So I would instead say that these entities simply make their own > decision about the way to incorporate these signals into their decision. > That's probably a systemic thing that affects more than Section 6; I see > that the draft uses "obey" in Section 7.1.1, for example. > > > > There seems - at least to me - to be an assumption on the part of some > people involved in this that Priority will be interpreted as an > imperative. That is, that a client might be able to tell a server to act > in a particular way and expect to have that instruction complied with. > Same for servers and proxies. That might be an appealing, but I can't see > any way in which we can rely on that. To the example in the draft, as a > CDN, I would expect that the server's view carries more weight than the > client's, but I wouldn't necessarily say that this something as absolute as > is currently implied. > > > > ** The draft is unclear as to whether it is `u=4,i=?1` or `u=4;i=?1`, > which you might want to double-check. > > > >> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019, at 20:04, Kazuho Oku wrote: > >> Dear working groups members, > >> > >> After the HTTPbis meeting on Monday, the priorities design team as well > >> as others have had discussions, and have converged on a particular > >> design (header-based, as well as allowing intermediaries to send frames > >> to express per-hop priorities). > >> > >> We have submitted a new revision of the I-D that reflects the emerging > >> consensus, that clarifies more about the corner cases and how they > >> should be handled. > >> > >> It can be found at: > >> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04 > >> HTML version is: > >> > https://kazuho.github.io/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority.html > >> > >> We have asked chairs to give us some time in tomorrow's HTTPbis meeting > >> that we can use to provide an update on the status. > >> > >> We are looking forward to hearing your comments either face-to-face, or > >> on the mailing list. > >> > >> Thank you in advance. > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- > >> From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org> > >> Date: 2019年11月20日(水) 19:53 > >> Subject: New Version Notification for > draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04..txt > >> To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue < > lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com> > >> > >> > >> > >> A new version of I-D, draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04.txt > >> has been successfully submitted by Kazuho Oku and posted to the > >> IETF repository. > >> > >> Name: draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority > >> Revision: 04 > >> Title: Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP > >> Document date: 2019-11-20 > >> Group: Individual Submission > >> Pages: 20 > >> URL: > https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04.txt > >> Status: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority/ > >> Htmlized: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04 > >> Htmlized: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority > >> Diff: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04 > >> > >> Abstract: > >> This document describes a scheme for prioritizing HTTP responses. > >> This scheme expresses the priority of each HTTP response using > >> absolute values, rather than as a relative relationship between a > >> group of HTTP responses. > >> > >> This document defines the Priority header field for communicating the > >> initial priority in an HTTP version-independent manner, as well as > >> HTTP/2 and HTTP/3 frames for reprioritizing the responses. These > >> share a common format structure that is designed to provide future > >> extensibility. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of > submission > >> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org. > >> > >> The IETF Secretariat > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Kazuho Oku > > > > -- Kazuho Oku
- 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