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

RE: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams

From: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:59:45 +0000
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
CC: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163ABFA8C@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
No disagreement on the present. However, in what I quoted from you, the verb is in the future tense. I interpreted this as a prediction of the future. Furthermore, I interpreted what I quoted as your saying that it is a non-signal when clients prefer better behaved servers that don’t fire upon sight of the client. I think it is a signal, admittedly not a very explicit nor particularly good one.

I agree with your assessment that it would be much better to have a clear signal that would allow a client to not be fed more by the server, than the client explicitly requests for.

From: willchan@google.com [mailto:willchan@google.com] On Behalf Of William Chan (???)
Sent: Tuesday, 26 February, 2013 18:52
To: Gabriel Montenegro
Cc: Amos Jeffries; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams

Sorry, can you clarify your disagreement here? Are you disagreeing that servers push content anyways today? Or are you saying that users already stop browsing such websites?

My assertion was that it's simply a fact of life today that servers push content. I'll go even further, websites push content and users still seem to use those websites anyway. My evidence: bing.com<http://bing.com> uses data URIs. Check out view-source:http://www.bing.com/search?q=flowers and search for 'data:image'.

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com<mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>> wrote:
I don’t agree with this: “I think we also agree that the current reality is that many servers push content anyways.” I thought I had said that already: I think clients’ abandoning such servers and going elsewhere is a signal, but agree that an explicit one would be much better.

From: willchan@google.com<mailto:willchan@google.com> [mailto:willchan@google.com<mailto:willchan@google.com>] On Behalf Of William Chan (???)
Sent: Saturday, 23 February, 2013 18:24
To: Gabriel Montenegro
Cc: Amos Jeffries; HTTP Working Group

Subject: Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams

I think we agree that, in certain cases, such as mobile clients worried about data usage, pushing content is bad. I think we also agree that the current reality is that many servers push content anyways. And you're right that the users may very well decide not to use those servers if the servers abuse push mechanisms. Creating better user feedback mechanisms to let them know when servers are hurting them would be a good thing.

I think what we disagree on is your optimism that the push mechanism in HTTP/2 will make it possible for the client to prevent the server from unduly pushing content by having a low default max streams limit. If the default is low/zero, and there's no explicit signal from the client that it doesn't want extra content, then the server will try to make the best choice, as it already does today, on whether or not to push and how.

I think what you want is a method for the client to signal to the server that it doesn't want to be pushed content, regardless of the mechanism (HTTP/2 push or resource inlining). I assert that having a low/zero *default* max streams limit won't help here, since defaults do *not* signal intent. Create an actual signal, don't take away the HTTP/2 push mechanism (a low/zero default is effectively equivalent to taking it away, since it requires a roundtrip to re-enable push, which defeats the purpose of push - saving roundtrips), since servers will just inline instead.

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com<mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>> wrote:
“where the server wants”

There’s two parties in this dance, and it takes both to want to do it. If a client wants at some point to not be fired upon strictly more than it requests for (perhaps because it is low on batteries or is very close to its monthly data allowance or because it just plain doesn’t feel like it), than a server inlining a bunch of stuff is like it shooting at the client. From the point of view of the client, getting fired at hurts. The client can very well decide never again to use such servers.

If the server does not inline but instead uses the new fancy push capability, it might be friendlier fire, but getting fired at even if it’s “friendly” fire hurts just the same.

Catering to the server’s wishes is fine and dandy, but that is only one part of the equation. I guess I’m a bit more optimistic in that I hope it will become possible for clients not to be fired at, instead of just changing from one type of fire to another.

From: willchan@google.com<mailto:willchan@google.com> [mailto:willchan@google.com<mailto:willchan@google.com>] On Behalf Of William Chan (???)
Sent: Saturday, 23 February, 2013 07:09
To: Amos Jeffries
Cc: HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams

Sorry, I did not explicitly state a conditional that I thought was implicitly understood.

*In situations where the server wants to push resources*, if the majority of clients disable HTTP/2 stream push, then servers will simply inline resources instead.

You're right that push can always be abused. But in situations that it makes sense to push, it's better to use HTTP/2's push facility than to inline resources. And we should ensure that the push mechanism remains viable, otherwise servers will just inline in those situations.

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz<mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz>> wrote:
On 23/02/2013 10:29 a.m., William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
Let's be careful about this issue, because as we've noted many times before, if the server can't leverage HTTP/2 to push streams, it is likely to just inline resources directly, which is definitely worse. Fundamentally, when the client issues a request, the server can send anything it wants in the response. Defaulting to 0 would most likely incentivize servers to to just inline resources, which is probably worse than sending push streams to clients which don't want it (I assert that in the open web, this should be a minority. If not, then HTTP/2 stream pushing will have failed and people will just inline resources).

Sorry I just parsed that as a re-wording of "if it turns out the majority of clients disable push we can consider it failed and servers will just do it via inlining anyway."

If that is the case, why are sites not already inlining _all_ of their page content and pushing it on first contact from any client. The answer should be obvious that it is a waste of resources for both client and server to do this at all on any large scale. Although, that said I'm still fielding questions about how to pre-cache entire sites like facebook and google :-( there will always be idiots whatever gets specified.


On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com<mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com> <mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com<mailto:Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>>> wrote:

    There is harm borne by the unwilling client receiver: battery and
    data allowance are not free.
    *From:*Roberto Peon [mailto:grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>
    *Sent:* Friday, 22 February, 2013 08:24
    *To:* Martin Thomson
    *Cc:* Osama Mazahir; ietf-http-wg@w3.org<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
    <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org<mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>> Group
    *Subject:* Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported


    Yup, I understand that part. :)

    I'm doing a poor job of pointing out that any harm done by doing
    something like this is borne by the party doing it.

    ... so why mandate it-- if there turns out to be a positive
    benefit of doing such a push in the future, fine.

    I guess I'm attempting to argue that, unless we can figure out how
    this causes harm/is likely to be done accidentally and cause
    issues, then it is better to not say anything about it. Saying
    something about it creates a spec with is more fragile.


    On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Martin Thomson
    <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com> <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>>> wrote:

        On 22 February 2013 05:29, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>
        <mailto:grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>>> wrote:
        > What is the motivation for that?

        I'm not suggesting that this is Osama's motivation, but look
        at the
        Upgrade scenario: the server is the first to send on the HTTP/2.0
        session with a response. There's an obvious opportunity there
        to push
        prior to the client SETTINGS frame arriving. The TLS scenario
        is less
        interesting - the client sends SETTINGS prior to any request,
        defaults non-interesting.

Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 20:01:11 UTC

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