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

Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 17:23:32 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNed3BaN9sDaVWpv5VO1K1eNZ7agqM5bKFOuWoxe+UmT+g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, "Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)" <rwheeldo@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Peter Lepeska <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
SHOULD is the right thing here.
And it is testable, though annoying to do--annoyingly, gmail already tests
for/enforces something like this, with a substantially low concurrency
limit.
Opening multiple HTTP/2 connections to mail.google.com would result in
users not being able to receive all of their attachments.

-=R


On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> Given that it’s not testable, and based on the feedback so far, I think
> softening the SHOULD to prose is the right way to go.
>
> Can everyone live with that?
>
>
> On 3 Jul 2014, at 5:26 am, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> wrote:
>
> > +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/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 00:23:59 UTC

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