W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:57:02 +0000
To: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3430.1359961022@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
--------
In message <CAA4WUYjiBZpShKKFfHQnixc94aOLrck0oR4ykARB=hF5h8nkfA@mail.gmail.com>
, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= writes:

>Anyway, the existing prioritization bug is as follows:

[...]

>The backend server
>obviously can't do this because it doesn't (at least, shouldn't!) know
>the clients behind the proxy.

This flies counter to vast experience:  Servers do almost everything
they can to identify the actual client (X-F-F, cookies, fingerprinting
etc), so I think this premise needs to be rethought.

>I consider all those options as suboptimal, and thus consider this
>issue to be a protocol bug. Our SPDY/4 prioritization proposal
>addresses this by using stream groups with advisory (all this is
>advisory after all) [...]

So what does the groups buy you, for all the complexity they add ?

As far as I can tell:  Nothing.

I think the priority should simply be documented as advisory and
mention that intermediaries SHOULD respect them, subject to
local administrative policy, and leave it at that.

The current proposal is complex enough as it is, adding complexity
to not solve problems that cannot be solved technically, is not
an improvement.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 06:57:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 4 February 2013 06:57:28 GMT