W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:46:29 +0200
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYiSu-GChY5Wi_yh654df0ya_7YtQDCsYbC2xvysnCxu6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote:

> On Mar 31, 2012, at 4:11 AM, Mike Belshe wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>wrote:
>
>> On 2012-03-31 01:53, Mike Belshe wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Before thinking this way we should look at how well other mandatory but
>>> optional to use features have turned out.
>>>
>>> One such example is pipelining.  Mandatory for a decade, but optional to
>>> implement. We still can't turn it on.
>>> ...
>>>
>>
>> But then many people have it turned on, and it seems to be on by default
>> in Safari mobile. Maybe the situation is much better than you think.
>>
>
> The data is overwhelming that it doesn't work.
>
>
> It works just fine.  The data shows only that a general-purpose browser,
> that doesn't even bother to report the nature of network protocol errors,
> encounters a small percentage of network problems that exceed its users'
> tolerance for failure conditions because its users have no control over
> their network.  That might indicate that the browser cannot deploy it, or
> it might indicate that there was a protocol bug on the browser that failed
> on edge cases (just like Netscape 1-3 had a buffer reading bug that would
> only trigger if the blank line CRLF occurred on a 256 byte buffer
> boundary).
>

I'm starting to get data back, but not in a state that I'd reliably
release. That said, there are very clear indicators of intermediaries
causing problems, especially when the pipeline depth exceeds 3 requests.


> It doesn't indicate anything about whether the feature works in HTTP for
> clients that are not browsers or for networks where the administrators
> do control their own deployment of intermediaries.
>

Why would the case be different for HTTP clients that are not browsers? Are
you implying that browsers are more broken in terms of pipelining support
than other HTTP clients? Or simply that they communicate over different
networks?

As for networks that control their own deployments of intermediaries, are
these entirely private networks? If you go over the public internet at any
point, I'd expect to encounter some form of intermediary not controlled by
administrators.


> Data points:
> a) chrome study showing connectivity results on port 80, 443, and 61xxx
> for websockets showed >10% failures on port 80 for non HTTP protocols.
>
>
> Unrelated to pipelining.
>
> b) no major browser has deployed pipelining.  It's not like we don't want
> to.  We all want to!  Ask Patrick McManus for details - to think this works
> is just wishful thinking. If all we had to do was turn on pipelining 3
> years ago, we would have done it.
>
>
> Major browsers care about all networks and all customers. Most of the
> clients
> on the Web are not major browsers.  Most of the systems on the Web that
> use HTTP
>

That's a fair point, but major browsers are probably in general more
important, due to the vast number of users. Is that widely disagreed? Sorry
if I'm blinded by my personal bias since I work on a browser. I hope this
naive claim won't come off too arrogant.


> pipelining deploy it within environments wherein they do control the
> network
> and can rubbish the stupid intermediaries that fail to implement it
> correctly.
>

What are these environments? Are they private networks? In these cases, is
HTTP pipelining that big a win? Do these networks operate on a global
scale? Or are they more local? If local, I'd expect the RTTs to be much
lower, and pipelining to be less of a win.

Also, I'm going to take the opportunity to ask a dumb question (sorry, I
lack your guys' experience with all the uses of HTTP). To what extent do
these other environments matter? If you don't run over the public internet,
instead running over private networks, can't you run whatever protocol you
want anyway? Is it more about saving time and not having to write more
code? Can they just use HTTP/1.1 and forget HTTP/2.0?

The rest can and do tolerate 5% failure rates because they actually report
> errors to the user and then the user fixes their own network problem.
>
> For the record - nobody wants to avoid using port 80 for new protocols.
>  I'd love to!  There is no religious reason that we don't - its just that
> we know, for a fact, that we can't do it without subjecting a non-trivial
> number of users to hangs, data corruption, and other errors.  You might
> think its ok for someone else's browser to throw reliability out the
> window, but nobody at Microsoft, Google, or Mozilla has been willing to do
> that...
>
> As for mobile safari - I mentioned this in my talk the other day - its a
> bit of a conundrum.  Android's browser (not chrome) also turns on
> pipelining.  But I know that neither Apple nor the Android team have
> produced data or analyzed the success or failures of pipelining.  Mobile
> browsing is downright awful (due to bad content, networking errors, and
> other things).  It could be that mobile networks have fewer interfering
> proxies, or it could be that these errors are just getting blamed on other
> mobile network glitches.  I honestly don't know.  I'd love to see data on
> the matter.
>
>
> Mobile networks use proxies that are owned by the mobile network.
> That is why they can and do implement pipelining.
>

It's not clear to me which intermediaries are causing the problems. Your
statement here seems to be predicated on the problematic intermediaries
being located closer to the client. Do we have any data to support this?


>
> We have to realize that HTTP is used everywhere.  The problems you
> have encountered while writing a general-purpose browser are not the
> same problems that I encounter while writing a spider and a content
> management system, what Samsung encounters when writing a TV and a
> refrigerator, what Willy encounters while writing a proxy, etc.
> There is no universal set of features for HTTP.
>
> I have seen dozens of systems over the years deploy products that are
> entirely dependent on chunked requests and never see a single problem
> with them because they are interacting with an Apache module that uses
> the chunked parser that I wrote.  They don't give a rat's ass about your
> experience with a general-purpose browser making use of general Internet
> access without any control over the intermediaries.  That is not a problem
> they share.
>
> They still need a standard for HTTP that includes the features they use.
>

What features do they need beyond what's offered in HTTP/1.1? Or is the
assumption that we want to completely kill off HTTP/1.1? What about Mike's
point in his httpbis presentation that we may want different protocols for
the "backoffice" and the general internet?


>
> Either way - until someone produces data to contradict the current major
> browser data - we need to stop dreaming that port 80 is viable for anything
> other than pure HTTP.  The data we have says its not.
>
>
> You must be thinking of some other thread.  An exchange over port 80 will
> either work or it will not -- the trick is to design the protocol so that
> it can succeed, or fails in a safe and recognizable way.
>

And falls back to HTTP/1.1 in a reasonably fast manner that does not
significantly degrade user experience.


>
> Either produce new data or admit you don't know and trust what the browser
> developers are telling you.
>
>
> Hah!  That's a good one.
>
> Regardless, I consider some form of multiplexing to be a requirement for
> whatever replaces HTTP/1.1, since there is no better reason to replace
> HTTP/1.1 (tokenizing or compression are hardly worth the bother given how
> quickly mobile is catching up to PCs).  I'd rather just replace TCP;
> I expect that we'll need a protocol that can operate over multiple mux
> and non-mux transports, because HTTP/1.1 works right now over many more
> transports than just TCP and TLS.  But mux over TCP is a reasonable start.
>
> ....Roy
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 23:46:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT