idnits 2.17.1 draft-lassey-priority-setting-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack a Security Considerations section. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (July 25, 2019) is 1736 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7540 (Obsoleted by RFC 9113) Summary: 2 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 HTTP B. Lassey 3 Internet-Draft Google 4 Intended status: Standards Track L. Pardue 5 Expires: January 26, 2020 Cloudflare 6 July 25, 2019 8 Declaring Support for HTTP/2 Priorities 9 draft-lassey-priority-setting-00 11 Abstract 13 HTTP/2 provides a prioritization scheme but experience has shown that 14 implementation support varies. This document defines an HTTP/2 15 setting that endpoints can use as an affirmative signal to indicate 16 their support for HTTP/2 Priorities. 18 Status of This Memo 20 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 21 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 23 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 24 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 25 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 26 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 28 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 29 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 30 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 31 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 33 This Internet-Draft will expire on January 26, 2020. 35 Copyright Notice 37 Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 38 document authors. All rights reserved. 40 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 41 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 42 (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 43 publication of this document. Please review these documents 44 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 45 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 46 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 47 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 48 described in the Simplified BSD License. 50 Table of Contents 52 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 53 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 54 3. The SETTINGS_ENABLE_HTTP2_PRIORITIES SETTINGS Parameter . . . 2 55 4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 4.1. A New HTTP/2 Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 57 5. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 58 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 60 1. Introduction 62 The HTTP/2 specification defines a priority scheme in [RFC7540], 63 Section 5.3, which some implementers have opted not to fully support. 64 The lack of signalling about the status of the implementation has 65 caused several implementations to implement heuristics to detect when 66 the clients they are connected to do not support priorities as 67 defined and take steps to compensate for that. The intent of this 68 draft is to provide and affirmative signalling mechanism for each 69 client to communicate whether or not it supports and will use the 70 priority scheme as defined in [RFC7540], Section 5.3. 72 2. Terminology 74 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 75 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 76 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 77 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 78 capitals, as shown here. 80 3. The SETTINGS_ENABLE_HTTP2_PRIORITIES SETTINGS Parameter 82 This document adds a new SETTINGS parameter to those defined by 83 [RFC7540], Section 6.5.2. 85 The new parameter name is SETTINGS_ENABLE_HTTP2_PRIORITIES. The 86 value of the parameter MUST be 0 or 1 to indicate not supporting or 87 supporting HTTP/2 priorities respectively. If either side sends the 88 parameter with a value of 0, clients SHOULD NOT send priority frames 89 and servers SHOULD NOT make any assumptions based on the presence or 90 lack thereof of priority frames. If both sides send the parameter 91 with a value of 1, then both parties MAY use HTTP/2 priorities as 92 they see fit. A sender MUST NOT send the parameter with the value of 93 0 after previously sending a value of 1. If a client or server does 94 not send the setting, the peer SHOULD NOT make any assumptions about 95 its support for HTTP/2 priorities. 97 4. IANA Considerations 99 4.1. A New HTTP/2 Setting 101 This document registers an entry in the "HTTP/2 Settings" registry 102 that was established by Section 11.3 of [RFC7540]. 104 Name: SETTINGS_ENABLE_HTTP2_PRIORITIES 106 Code: 0xTBD 108 Initial Value: 1 110 Specification: This document 112 5. Normative References 114 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 115 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 116 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 117 . 119 [RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext 120 Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, 121 DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, 122 . 124 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 125 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 126 May 2017, . 128 Authors' Addresses 130 Brad Lassey 131 Google 133 Email: lassey@chromium.org 135 Lucas Pardue 136 Cloudflare 138 Email: lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com