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

Re: http/2 prioritization/fairness bug with proxies

From: Ben Niven-Jenkins <ben@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:26:52 +0000
Cc: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <42A54D15-0AA3-4172-94F7-E94C86E84D7F@niven-jenkins.co.uk>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

On 4 Feb 2013, at 18:29, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> I'm sorry I didn't address this in the first email. I confess I
>> thought it was obvious. Grouping lets you do relative prioritization
>> within a group, as opposed to across the entire session.
> I understood that, my question pertains to reality:  What do you
> get in the _real_ world scenario ?
> Likely a DoS amplification if the proxy honors the client's priority
> desires...
> I'm fine with the client communicating a desired priority, I'm not
> fine with 50 pages of standards-verbiage about what the other end
> should do about it.

I believe what is being suggested is:

- The spec includes some more 'hooks' for communicating more than just a single set of priorities (as is the case with SPDY today) based on feedback from Will etc from the limitations they've found in SPDY's current prioritisation options.
- Honouring of priorities and how exactly different priorities are handled/scheduled/etc is down to the implementation of the sender.

So the idea is the protocol contains enough 'hooks' to sufficiently express the different priorities between & within groups that folks would like to express but isn't prescriptive about how anyone uses or implements different prioritisation, scheduling, etc schemes.

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 20:27:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC