W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2021

Re: [Masque] Prioritizing QUIC DATAGRAMs (was: Re: Prioritizing HTTP DATAGRAMs)

From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2021 22:47:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oYcgC359cxaCCqtxULf7r=sLrdmfHjGFYSZrjGzsh2i1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>
Cc: Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>, MASQUE <masque@ietf.org>, Samuel Hurst <samuelh@rd.bbc.co.uk>, Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
Hey Martin,

On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 10:01 PM Martin Duke <martin.h.duke@gmail.com>

> This is an argument against punting, I think. If there are additional
> semantics required to specify priorities on a sub-stream basis, it will be
> somewhat more painful to have this be an extension than something native.
> Which is not to say we shouldn't punt.

I don't follow this argument, sorry. Extensibile priorities is not base to
HTTP/3, it could be substituted by something entirely different (although I
kind of hope not). HTTP/3 DATAGRAM is an extension, built on top of the
QUIC transport DATAGRAM extension. WebTransport is a new thing built on top
of these extensions. What does native mean in your definition? I really
think it's better that things wishing to use Extensible priorities take on
board the responsibility of defining that, using the extension mechanisms
that it provides. Otherwise, we're bottlenecking the progress that people
can make for the initial use cases that these things were built towards.

Received on Wednesday, 23 June 2021 21:47:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 23 June 2021 21:47:47 UTC