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

Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 12:26:28 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYj=_tJNe1=dg4b2yp0y5WM61Bpie3Wp=6NhBqMw5Y5VGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)" <rwheeldo@cisco.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>

On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo) <
rwheeldo@cisco.com> wrote:

> As previously discussed, it's technically close to impossible for us to
> implement and undesirable in many other cases. I think this position has
> been well understood enough that there will be no attempt to enforce or
> proactively encourage any limit. Hence, it's an editorial issue rather than
> an interop one at this point.
> However, I'd just remove the text. It's adding controversy without value
> IMHO. Alternatively, if we want to say something, drop the RFC2119
> language. How about: "In typical browser cases, client will achieve better
> throughput by restricting themselves to a single HTTP/2 connections to each
> host and port pair, where host is derived from a URI, a selected
> alternative service [ALT-SVC], or a configured proxy."

Peter might disagree with this statement.

Overall, like you, I feel this is primarily an editorial issue. There are
definitely reasons to open multiple connections, and clients are going to
do them if they feel like they need to. But I do think it's overall good to
encourage using fewer connections. I'm not going to comment any more on
this because I feel like it's more bikeshedding than anything.

> That leaves the door wide open for large downloads, proxies and all the
> other "atypical" cases.
> Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]
> Sent: 02 July 2014 06:17
> To: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: #529: Working around concurrency limits
> <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/529>
> As I just mentioned in the issue, we already limit the requirement to a
> SHOULD here, allowing proxies to open more connections if they feel it
> necessary (and indeed, this isn't something we can really test for).
> Do we need to do more than that, or can we close the issue?
> Regards,
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 19:26:55 UTC

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