W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2020

Re: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt

From: Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2020 13:17:27 -0500
Message-ID: <CAKcm_gO+B92LKDKdcfJwq4SbXjzh7q8qKER=3U7K=MO1VhH4Aw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Thanks for updating this draft.

On the point of headers vs frame, based on my experience leading the design
team and the slightly wider scope of use cases that are now on the table,
which includes server-side reprioritization, I see the compromise of having
both a frame and a header as the only way forward which has the ability to
gain consensus.  I also truly believe there are valid use cases for both.

I propose we should own that position and seek to describe the properties
of each clearly.

Thanks, Ian

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:40 PM Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>

> Hello WGs,
> Following adoption of draft-kazuho-httpbis-priority-04 by HTTPbis, Kazuho
> and I have published draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00 (see forwarded email).
> The major change in this draft relates to the urgency levels. Based on
> feedback and discussion, we have kept 8 levels (0-7 in descending order of
> priority) but have minimized the semantics. This allows a common urgency
> range, without being overly prescriptive on client's ability to use the
> range. Furthermore, the text describing how an intermediary might approach
> merging priority signals from client and server implied a weighting toward
> server signals; we have reduced the guidance and highlight that merging
> decision are a local decision.
> This draft version contains changes that reflect emerging WG consensus.
> However, the list of open issues is available on Github [1] and we
> encourage continued discussion, notably the debate on using frame vs.
> headers is still unresolved.
> Cheers
> Lucas
> [1] - https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/labels/priorities
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <intrnet-drafts@ietf.org>
> Date: Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 5:09 PM
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
> To: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Lucas Pardue <
> lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
> A new version of I-D, draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Lucas Pardue and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> Name:           draft-ietf-httpbis-priority
> Revision:       00
> Title:          Extensible Prioritization Scheme for HTTP
> Document date:  2020-03-05
> Group:          httpbis
> Pages:          19
> URL:
> https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00.txt
> Status:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority/
> Htmlized:       https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-00
> Htmlized:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-priority
> 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
Received on Thursday, 5 March 2020 18:17:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 5 March 2020 18:17:56 UTC