- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:03:21 +1100
- To: Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks, Patrick. This makes me wonder whether we should include advice about greasing into sf-bis. Cheers, > On 26 Jan 2023, at 3:34 am, Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> wrote: > > Chrome 111 (currently in dev channel) will be using the incremental flag for most requests (most everything except for scripts and stylesheets). > > Safari already makes use of it but both Firefox and Safari use headers while Chrome currently uses priority update frames. > > IMPORTANT: one big difference is that Chrome currently omits the urgency in the value of the priority field dictionary if the urgency is the default and will send an "i" by itself (Safari appears to always send the urgency explicitly). > > I mention this because we're seeing an increase in protocol errors being reported that coincides with the revision where the flag was added. > > So far it looks like the mvfast implementation might not like the priority string (which appears to be a valid use of the dictionary structured type but maybe hasn't been exercised) but there may be other implementations that I'm not aware of that also choke on it (both the Google and Cloudflare quiche implementations seem to be ok with it). > > Thanks, > > -Pat -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2023 02:04:03 UTC