Re: HTTP/3 Prioritization Proposal

Hi Pat,

There's been a fair amount of discussion (and interest) about prioritisation, both here and in the QUIC WG.

So far, AIUI our inclination has been to avoid making a large change from HTTP/2 in HTTP/3, because doing so would both increase complexity of implementations, and also potentially introduce friction for sites and applications transitioning from HTTP/2. 

I don't recall us having a formal consensus call to support that position, but if you want to talk about it more, the QUIC WG mailing list is probably the right place.

My sense is that people know that we need to do something about prioritisation, but we're not yet confident about any particular solution. Experimentation with new schemes as HTTP/2 extensions would be very helpful, as it would give us some data to work with. If you'd like to propose such an extension, this is the right place to do it.

Hope this helps,


> On 29 Jan 2019, at 2:10 am, Patrick Meenan <> wrote:
> I'm happy to draft it as an I-D but wanted to see if people thought there was merit to it before going through the effort:
> Basically, I'd like to propose replacing the dependency trees and weights with a simpler scheme that has "priority" and "concurrency" values for each stream (with no shared tree state).
> There may be HTTP use cases that it doesn't cover but coming from the browser side of things (and having spent some time working on server-side prioritization) it should make it MUCH easier to manage prioritization and to schedule an "optimal" prioritization for resources.
> Thanks,
> -Pat Meenan

Mark Nottingham

Received on Monday, 28 January 2019 21:54:53 UTC