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


From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:28:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfwnDVfryDy+W+deKDeS6+h=-pDNmZ_XXMpxm9mc+tG6g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:16 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah. That explains my confusion :)
> My understanding was we would replace any reference to SYN_REPLY with
> HEADERS (the frames are exactly the same except for the opcodes), leave
> SYN_STREAM alone, and leave HEADERS alone.
> That I'd support.

If we're certain that all we need in the initial response frame is a
bag of headers, then +1.

> Taking the priority out of SYN_STREAM would only bloat things on the wire,
> since the client will always want to state priority for a new stream. I
> don't support removing priority from SYN_STREAM.


- James

> -=R
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:03 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>> Probably my fault :) My understanding of the thread in respect to this
>> particular point
>> * Martin is proposing combining SYN_STREAM+SYN_REPLY+HEADERS into a single
>> HEADERS frame.
>>   - single HEADERS frame might contain priority
>>   - otherwise, we need a PRIORITIZE frame
>> * I want the initial stream frame (whether it be HEADERS or SYN_STREAM) to
>> contain a priority.
>> * Furthermore, I find it weird for subsequent frames carrying the header
>> name/value block to *also* carry a priority. This is what I objected to as
>> "tight coupling" of priority with headers name/value blocks in all
>> HEADERS-esque frames.
>>   - This somewhat implies we should use separate frames.
>> * I believe Amos read my statement as arguing against stream
>> reprioritization over its lifetime. As I've previously said on this mailing
>> list, I am in favor of experimenting with stream reprioritization.
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm about as clear as mud about what we're actually talking about now :)
>>> -=R
>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:49 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
>>> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2013 2:19 p.m., William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Martin Thomson
>>>>>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>     On 25 February 2013 20:42, William Chan (陈智昌)
>>>>>>     <willchan@chromium.org <mailto:willchan@chromium.org>> wrote:
>>>>>>     > Fully agreed it's more general. I think that unless we go all
>>>>>>     the way with
>>>>>>     > ditching SYN_STREAM too (which I disagree with), then I think
>>>>>>     it's a net
>>>>>>     > loss (primarily due to more difficulty in grokking the spec) to
>>>>>>     save a frame
>>>>>>     > type value and combine SYN_REPLY and HEADERS into one.
>>>>>>     I'm interested in what you feel SYN_STREAM provides that you can't
>>>>>> get
>>>>>>     with HEADERS.
>>>>>>     I don't care either way about whether the priority is in the
>>>>>> message
>>>>>>     or not.  So, in the interests of saving those few bytes, that's a
>>>>>>     feature that could be retained (or even moved to HEADERS).
>>>>>> I'm not completely clear here on the stated proposal, so I'll just
>>>>>> reclarify my position here. I think that the priority should be communicated
>>>>>> in the same frame which starts the stream, whether that frame be called
>>>>>> SYN_STREAM or HEADERS. I'm not sure if it makes sense to continue including
>>>>>> the priority information for followup headers, that may arrive in a HEADERS
>>>>>> frame. I'm leaning towards saying it does not.
>>>>>>     The only other thing is the UNIDIRECTIONAL flag.  This flag is
>>>>>>     currently redundant: all streams sent by the client are
>>>>>> bidirectional,
>>>>>>     and all streams from the server are unidirectional without
>>>>>> exception.
>>>>>> I think in the normal HTTP use case, yes. But when you view HTTP/2 as
>>>>>> a transport layer for other protocols, then I think it might be reasonable
>>>>>> to have the server initiate a bidirectional stream. Currently there's no
>>>>>> binding for that in the web platform, but you could imagine it (register an
>>>>>> event handler for server initiated streams, rather than relying on hanging
>>>>>> GETs / client initiated WebSockets). I don't feel strongly here due to not
>>>>>> having a concrete use case.
>>>>>>     As I said in another mail, I'm not sure that SYN_STREAM/SYN_REPLY
>>>>>>     actually help with understanding the spec.  On the contrary, I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>>     that they lead to false impressions about how streams start.  They
>>>>>>     imply negotiation, which is far from the case.
>>>>>> Intriguing. I did not read the read the earlier email and that was my
>>>>>> bad. I think I have a bias because it's always been called SYN_STREAM and
>>>>>> SYN_REPLY and that's how I conceptualize it. I'm willing to say that my
>>>>>> conceptions on the naming might be very biased and maybe should be
>>>>>> discounted.
>>>>>> In summary, here's my current position:
>>>>>> * the first frame for a stream should include its priority (to be
>>>>>> clear, I don't view the PUSH_PROMISE as belonging to the promised new
>>>>>> stream, but to the associated stream)
>>>>>> * it feels weird to me for subsequent frames on the stream that
>>>>>> include the header name/value block to also include the priority. i don't
>>>>>> like the tight coupling of that.
>>>>> I do like it and from earlier readings I'm not alone in that. Priority
>>>>> needs to be adaptable within the duration of the stream _in total_. Ignoring
>>>>> the idea one end adjusting priority dynamically.... client can still name
>>>>> its priority based on objects importance for whatever its user is doing, and
>>>>> server claim a higher/lower relative priority based on its own knowledge of
>>>>> the web site/service resource. There is no contradictions there and
>>>>> adjusting the priority preference after input from both ends should not be
>>>>> allowed to affect the traffic flow in any major way - at worst some
>>>>> resources may get slower response time because they initially claimed lower
>>>>> priority and raising it was rejected by the assigning algorithm.
>>>> Just to be clear, I am very open to reprioritization, and in fact do
>>>> want to experiment with it in HTTP/2. I'm just saying that I feel that it's
>>>> weird to couple it to whatever frame carries the header name/value block.
>>>> I'm trying to work through my head the implications here. I think it means
>>>> that *if* I want to send a follow up HEADERS frame, I'd have to remember the
>>>> priority of the stream, whereas today I calculate it once based off the
>>>> resource type and forget it. Not a huge deal, bookkeeping's easy and the
>>>> extra state is cheap. But it seems nice not to require it.
>>>>>> * i feel less strongly about the naming of SYN_STREAM+SYN_REPLY vs
>>>>>> HEADERS, after what Martin wrote. i fully admit my mental bias here.
>>>>> When there are two features largely duplicating the same things bias is
>>>>> expected. :-)
>>>>> Amos
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 04:29:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC