W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: CONTINUATION proposal w/ minimum change

From: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 00:10:38 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPyZ6=K8KA4iPaL1MssNoMW4xo5-QejetzqhvR-juHtFtSLeCw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, phk <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
wrote:

>
> On Jul 1, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 7:38 PM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
> > **Is it worth continuing with this proposal?**
> >
> >
> > I think Michael brought up some really valid points.
> >
> >
> > Assuming the following changes:
> >
> > + opcodes and their associated literal values MUST fit within the
> initial HEADERS frame
> >
> > + opcodes and their associated literal values MAY span CONTINUATION
> frames
> >
> > + static table references are OK in CONTINUATION
> >
> > + same-stream muxing between HEADERS and CONTINUATION is disallowed
> >
> > + reference set emitted at the end of HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE
> >
> >
> > Does anyone thing this proposal is still worth pursuing?
> >
> >
> > ​Personally I prefer the current CONTINUATION spec to the proposed one.
> > The proposed solution removes some restrictions, but introduces lots of
> complexities.
> > And those complexities are just for "​only 0.02% of requests and 0.006%
> of requests" in the world.
> > I think it probably does not worth the cost.
> >
> > The servers always have the power to terminate connection if header size
> is too large for them.
>
> Can they? The blacklist proposal that was recently suggested today
> suggests that browsers won’t talk to them if they actually do.
>
>
​I don't remind the blacklist proposal, but
today, nginx, apache​ and other servers have their own limit regarding
header fields.
HTTP/2 enabled servers are no exception here.



>
> > It is already a good incentive and pressure for peer not to abuse
> HEADERS, because large request will result in connection lost with higher
> probability.
> >
> > We already know headers > 16K (e.g., Kerberos), so we need CONTINUATION
> for them in anyway.
> > Flow controlling CONTINUATION unfairly penalizes those valid HTTP
> requests by arbitrarily delaying transmission because of flow control and
> scheduling.  In addition to this, as already discussed, headers are more
> likely kept in memory while reading entire request, so applying flow
> control for them just complicates both specification and implementation
> without good value.
>
> How does it arbitrarily delayed. Senders have pressure to send them as
> fast as they can. The only delay flow control has is allowing other streams
> to progress, which is exactly what should happen in a multiplexed protocol.
>
>
​Connection-level flow control fully blocks CONTINUATION and DATA in a
connection.  Transmission of CONTINUATION​ is delayed until WINDOW_UPDATE
is received.​  Also, in client scheduler, it may get very small send window
in contention.  If we can send entire request headers without flow control,
we have less block and server can use their time more useful.

Best regards,

Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa



>  --
> Jason T. Greene
> WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect
> JBoss, a division of Red Hat
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 1 July 2014 15:11:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC