Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits

+peter

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/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>