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

Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits

From: Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 07:42:49 -0400
Message-Id: <DC06F94F-865A-42A7-84E4-99669A487076@gmail.com>
Cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, "Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo)" <rwheeldo@cisco.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
"HTTP/2 eliminates delays due to queuing in the browser so opening more than one connection will not result in the large performance gains seen in HTTP/1.1. It will still however mitigate the impact of slow start over high bandwidth links and so will improve performance in some cases."

Something like the above?

> On Jul 9, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> +1.
> 
> As per the other thread, more than one connection will often result in better page load time so I agree with removing the SHOULD.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Peter
> 
>> On Jul 2, 2014, at 8:06 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 Wednesday, 9 July 2014 11:43:19 UTC

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