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: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:58:58 -0300
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgdtTzXLT8T5Ena2f8jMOSH86SCAjELLzNOSpcrM6EPDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
OK :) Well, we can discuss that alternative if we want to revisit the
earlier decision, but I'm happy to move forward with what we already agreed
upon earlier.


On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do remember :)
> Honestly I like the IANA port or NPN string thing or something similar,
> because it gives us other information that we'd otherwise have to parse out
> of the HEADERS thing, but, it is the lowest complexity alternative.
> -=R
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:44 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org
> > wrote:
>
>> Remember we originally *had* a flag for UNIDIRECTIONAL, which we removed
>> because it was redundant in the traditional HTTP use cases.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> At worst, we burn a flag which states it is half-closed or
>>> unidirectional, or provide some other information which identifies the IANA
>>> port number for the overlayed protocol or something.
>>>  Anyway, *shrug*.
>>> -=R
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:32 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <
>>> willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 on this.  I like this approach.
>>>>>  On Apr 29, 2013 2:15 PM, "Roberto Peon" <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I had thought to provide no explicit limit for PUSH_PROMISE, just as
>>>>>> there is no limit to the size of a webpage, or the number of links upon it.
>>>>>> The memory requirements for PUSH are similar or the same (push should
>>>>>> consume a single additional bit of overhead per url, when one considers
>>>>>> that the URL should be parsed, enqueued, etc.).
>>>>>> If the browser isn't done efficiently, or, the server is for some
>>>>>> unknown reason being stupid and attempting to DoS the browser with many
>>>>>> resources that it will never use, then the client sends RST_STREAM for the
>>>>>> ones it doesn't want, and makes a request on its own. all tidy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I don't feel too strongly here. I do feel like this is more of an edge
>>>> case, possibly important for forward proxies (or reverse proxies speaking
>>>> to backends over a multiplexed channel like HTTP/2). It doesn't really
>>>> matter for my browser, so unless servers chime in and say they'd prefer a
>>>> limit, I'm fine with this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> As for PUSH'd streams, the easiest solution is likely to assume that
>>>>>> the stream starts out in a half-closed state.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>  I looked into our earlier email threads and indeed this is what we
>>>> agreed on (
>>>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/1106.html).
>>>> I voiced some mild objection since if you view the HTTP/2 framing layer as
>>>> a transport for another application protocol, then bidirectional server
>>>> initiated streams might be nice. But in absence of any such protocol, this
>>>> is a nice simplification.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -=R
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <
>>>>>> willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:46 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess I don't see per-stream state as being that expensive.
>>>>>>> Compression contexts are a fixed state on a per-connection basis, meaning
>>>>>>> that additional streams don't add to that state. The main cost, as I see
>>>>>>> it, is the decompressed headers. I said potentially since that basically
>>>>>>> only means the URL (unless there are other headers important for caching
>>>>>>> due to Vary), and additional headers can come in the HEADERS frame. Also,
>>>>>>> PUSH_PROMISE doesn't require allocating other state, like backend/DB
>>>>>>> connections, if you only want to be able to handle
>>>>>>> (#MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMs) of those backend connections in parallel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they're not specified, then we should specify it, but I've always
>>>>>>> understood the header compression contexts to be directional and apply to
>>>>>>> all frames sending headers in a direction. Therefore there should be two
>>>>>>> compression contexts in a connection, one for header blocks being sent and
>>>>>>> one for header blocks being received. If this is controversial, let's fork
>>>>>>> a thread and discuss it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  >>
>>>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>>> >> > 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great. You guys are way better than I am about tracking all known
>>>>>>> issues. I just have it mapped fuzzily in my head :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 21:59:25 UTC

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