idnits 2.17.1 draft-pardue-masque-dgram-priority-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 : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document doesn't use any RFC 2119 keywords, yet seems to have RFC 2119 boilerplate text. -- The document date (13 July 2021) is 1016 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(See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Outdated reference: A later version (-10) exists of draft-ietf-quic-datagram-02 == Outdated reference: A later version (-12) exists of draft-ietf-httpbis-priority-03 == Outdated reference: A later version (-11) exists of draft-ietf-masque-h3-datagram-02 Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 MASQUE L. Pardue 3 Internet-Draft Cloudflare 4 Intended status: Standards Track 13 July 2021 5 Expires: 14 January 2022 7 HTTP Datagram Prioritization 8 draft-pardue-masque-dgram-priority-00 10 Abstract 12 Application protocols using the QUIC transport protocol rely on 13 streams, and optionally the DATAGRAM extension, to carry application 14 data. Streams and datagrams can be multiplexed but QUIC provides no 15 interoperable prioritization scheme or signaling mechanism itself. 16 The HTTP Extensible Prioritization scheme describes how to prioritize 17 streams in HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. This document adopts the scheme to 18 support HTTP datagrams. 20 Note tho Readers 22 _RFC EDITOR: please remove this section before publication_ 24 Source code and issues list for this draft can be found at 25 https://github.com/LPardue/draft-pardue-masque-dgram-priority 26 (https://github.com/LPardue/draft-pardue-masque-dgram-priority). 28 Status of This Memo 30 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 31 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 33 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 34 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 35 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 36 Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 38 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 39 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 40 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 41 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 43 This Internet-Draft will expire on 14 January 2022. 45 Copyright Notice 47 Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 48 document authors. All rights reserved. 50 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 51 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/ 52 license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. 53 Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights 54 and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components 55 extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text 56 as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are 57 provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. 59 Table of Contents 61 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 62 1.1. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 63 2. Signalling Datagram Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 64 2.1. Datagram Urgency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 65 3. Scheduling guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 66 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 67 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 68 6. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 69 6.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 70 6.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 71 Appendix A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 72 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 74 1. Introduction 76 Application protocols using the QUIC transport protocol [QUIC] rely 77 on streams, and optionally the DATAGRAM extension [DATAGRAM], to 78 carry application data. Streams and datagrams can be multiplexed but 79 QUIC provides no interoperable prioritization scheme or signaling 80 mechanism itself. The HTTP Extensible Prioritization scheme 81 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-priority] describes how to prioritize streams in 82 HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. This document adopts the scheme to support HTTP 83 datagrams [I-D.ietf-masque-h3-datagram]. 85 The Extensible Priorities scheme for HTTP describes how clients can 86 send priority signals related to requests in order to suggest how a 87 server allocates resources to serving responses. When the protocol 88 is HTTP/2, responses are carried on streams. When the protocol is 89 HTTP/3, responses are carries on QUIC streams. 91 While QUIC streams support multiplexing natively via use of a stream 92 identifier, the QUIC DATAGRAM extension does not provide any such 93 identifier. [I-D.ietf-masque-h3-datagram] defines a set of 94 identifiers that can be controlled and accessed by HTTP. When the 95 protocol is HTTP/2 or HTTP/3, one identifer relates to a request 96 stream. A second, optional, identifer relates to an abstract 97 context. [I-D.ietf-masque-h3-datagram] does not define any means for 98 multiplexed datagram prioritization. 100 This document describes how the Extensible Priorities scheme applies 101 to HTTP datagrams. Signals sent by clients related to requests can 102 also be considered input to server scheduling decisions regarding 103 HTTP datagrams. 105 1.1. Notational Conventions 107 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 108 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and 109 "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in 110 BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all 111 capitals, as shown here. 113 2. Signalling Datagram Priority 115 The Extensible Prioritization scheme [I-D.ietf-httpbis-priority] 116 provides a framework for communicating and acting upon priority 117 parameters. It defines the urgency and incremental parameters and 118 provides guidance to implementers about how to act on these 119 parameters, in combination with other inputs, to make resource 120 allocation and scheduling choices. Urgency communicates the client- 121 view of request importance and incremental communicates how the 122 client intends to process response data as it arrives. Parameters 123 are communicated in HTTP headers or version-specific frames. 124 Omitting a priority signal indicates to the server to apply default 125 priorities. The core scheme is extensible, new parameters can be 126 defined to augment the base ones. 128 2.1. Datagram Urgency 130 The datagram-urgency parameter ("du") takes an integer between 0 and 131 7, in descending order of priority. This range matches the base 132 urgency ("u") paramenter range. 134 The value is encoded as an sf-integer. The default value is 3. 136 This parameter indicates the sender's recommendation, based on the 137 expectation that the server would transmit HTTP datagrams in the 138 order of their urgency values if possible. The smaller the value, 139 the higher the precedence. 141 The following example shows a request for a CSS file with the urgency 142 set to "0", any associated datagrams will be delivered with the lower 143 urgency of "2": 145 :method = GET 146 :scheme = https 147 :authority = example.net 148 :path = /style.css 149 priority = u=0, du=2 151 3. Scheduling guidance 153 TBD - bikeshed 155 4. Security Considerations 157 TBD 159 5. IANA Considerations 161 TBD 163 6. References 165 6.1. Normative References 167 [DATAGRAM] Pauly, T., Kinnear, E., and D. Schinazi, "An Unreliable 168 Datagram Extension to QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet- 169 Draft, draft-ietf-quic-datagram-02, 16 February 2021, 170 . 173 [I-D.ietf-httpbis-priority] 174 Oku, K. and L. Pardue, "Extensible Prioritization Scheme 175 for HTTP", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- 176 httpbis-priority-03, 11 January 2021, 177 . 180 [I-D.ietf-masque-h3-datagram] 181 Schinazi, D. and L. Pardue, "Using QUIC Datagrams with 182 HTTP/3", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-ietf- 183 masque-h3-datagram-02, 26 May 2021, 184 . 187 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 188 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, 189 DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, 190 . 192 [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC 193 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, 194 May 2017, . 196 6.2. Informative References 198 [QUIC] Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based 199 Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000, 200 DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021, 201 . 203 Appendix A. Acknowledgements 205 This document is inspired by discussion by many people across HTTP, 206 QUIC and MASQUE WGs. 208 Author's Address 210 Lucas Pardue 211 Cloudflare 213 Email: lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com