W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:46:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcKQkn1o4WZscwNmSmm6YzqE_TKxPr4jnozNdaVqpZ7=A@mail.gmail.com>
To: ChanWilliam(陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
On Apr 29, 2013 11:36 AM, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>
> Oops, forgot about that. See, the issue with that is now we've made
PUSH_PROMISE as potentially expensive as a HEADERS frame, since it does
more than just simple stream id allocation. I guess it's not really a huge
issue, since if it's used correctly (in the matter you described), then it
shouldn't be too expensive. If clients attempt to abuse it, then servers
should probably treat it in a similar manner as they treat people trying to
abuse header compression in all other frames with the header block, and
kill the connection accordingly.
>

Not just "potentially" as expensive..   As soon as we get a push promise we
need to allocate state and hold onto it for an indefinite period of time.
We do not yet know exactly when that compression context can be let go
because it has not yet been bound to stream state.  Do push streams all
share the same compression state? Do those share the same compression state
as the originating stream? The answers might be obvious but they haven't
yet been written down.

>>
>>
>> > As far as the potential problem above, the root problem is that when
you
>> > have limits you can have hangs. We see this all the time today with
browsers
>> > (it's only reason people do domain sharding so they can bypass
limits). I'm
>> > not sure I see the value of introducing the new proposed limits. They
don't
>> > solve the hangs, and I don't think the granularity addresses any of the
>> > costs in a finer grained manner. I'd like to hear clarification on what
>> > costs the new proposed limits will address.
>>
>> I don't believe that the proposal improves the situation enough (or at
>> all) to justify the additional complexity.  That's something that you
>> need to assess for yourself.  This proposal provides more granular
>> control, but it doesn't address the core problem, which is that you
>> and I can only observe each other actions after some delay, which
>> means that we can't coordinate those actions perfectly.  Nor can be
>> build a perfect model of the other upon which to observe and act upon.
>>  The usual protocol issue.
>
>
> OK then. My proposal is to add a new limit for PUSH_PROMISE frames
though, separately from the MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS limit, since
PUSH_PROMISE exists as a promise to create a stream, explicitly so we don't
have to count it toward the existing MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS limit (I
searched the spec and this seems to be inadequately specced). Roberto and I
discussed that before and may have written an email somewhere in spdy-dev@,
but I don't think we've ever raised it here.
>

Well,  there is an issue tracking it in the github repo now, at least.  As
currently defined in the spec,  it definitely needs to be addressed.
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 18:47:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC