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

Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:30:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfO140h4UgS55P6Ouj2vEc7ZCZzGTBOWRD7+1DigRNUMw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Again, what happens when the required settings are not in the frame?


On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> If you don't want them to be mandatory then don't make them mandatory as
> part of the Upgrade mechanism and rely on the defaults if you choose to
> upgrade without including them.
>
> Consistency :)
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ug. Slippery slope.
>> I'm happy to say the settings frame is mandatory, you SHOULD send
>> settings you care about in the initial settings frame, and otherwise you
>> get what you get.
>>
>> This is less complicated. What would be the result of not having the
>> mandatory fields in the settings frame as proposed above? If it isn't
>> 'close down the connection', the requirement is useless.
>>
>> -=R
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>wrote:
>>
>>> +1 To consistent handling of frames, whatever the rules are.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe the bytes are completely inconsequential.
>>>>
>>>> My goal with this was to make it so there is only one set of rules for
>>>> SETTINGS frames.  Currently, there is the "oh this is the first settings
>>>> frame rules".
>>>>
>>>> This is not going to have impact on performance, but removing edge
>>>> cases is desirable to me.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Martin Thomson <
>>>> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This pull request proposes to make two settings mandatory in every
>>>>> SETTINGS frame: SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS and
>>>>> SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/150
>>>>>
>>>>> Gabriel's proposal for an HTTP/1.1 header for carrying settings in the
>>>>> Upgrade made these mandatory only at that point, which didn't cover
>>>>> the TLS handshake, or just starting from prior knowledge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two questions:
>>>>>  - Do we want to make any settings mandatory, or are defaults
>>>>> acceptable?
>>>>>  - Is this the right trade-off? Or are the 16 bytes on subsequent
>>>>> SETTINGS frames completely intolerable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that if we make these settings mandatory, there might be other
>>>>> settings in the future that will also be mandatory; e.g., the
>>>>> compression context size.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Saturday, 29 June 2013 19:31:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC