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

Re: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.

From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 17:56:57 +0800
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <64C2D6D3-AF40-4623-B5F0-63D60BAF4D10@gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>

On 2014–07–12, at 5:35 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> Conclusion based on corrected arguments is quite the opposite:
> - Fragmentation offers server as sender (or client as sender too)
> ability to freely cause HOL-block or stall/DoS the connection with
> multiple end-clients suffering.
> - Fragmentation causes state commitment increases in proxies.

+1. I reached the same conclusions and it was the last straw that caused me to suspend my implementation effort.

Header streaming does not practically reduce state commitment for a proxy which coalesces connections. Coalescing is one of the most promising aspects of HTTP/2 for me. It would seem to be a must for reverse proxies, but yet it also seems impossible to accomplish according to the spec.

I don’t gather that multi-session connections have been done before. So is it outside the charter or is it recommended practice? Has anyone even tried it yet?

Looking back at the archives, I alluded to the technical side of the problem in messages sent 21 Apr 2014 20:17, 21 May 2014 09:01, 26 May 2014 17:27 (PDT) but for whatever reason never started a thread to address my perception or intended application directly.
Received on Sunday, 13 July 2014 09:57:38 UTC

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