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

Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 15:31:16 +0900
Message-ID: <53C8BF34.9070404@iij.ad.jp>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
I prefer b).

I can live with a) if we can avoid complexity to unwind compression 
contexts. That's too hard to manage HPACK.

Regards,

(2014/07/18 9:44), Mark Nottingham wrote:
> We've had a rollicking discussion about the design tradeoffs in CONTINUATION, especially regarding HOL blocking and DoS considerations.
>
> I see very little new information entering that discussion, and I think everyone has come to understand the tradeoffs. For a refresher, please see the wiki:
>    https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/ContinuationProposals
>
> I proposed two options the other day:
>
> a) Remove CONTINUATION from the specification and add a new setting that dictates the maximum HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE frame size (as distinct from max_frame_size) a peer is willing to receive. I.e., the setting refers to the compressed header size.
>
> b) Keep CONTINUATION in the specification, and add a new setting that advises the maximum header set size (i.e,. uncompressed) a peer is willing to receive (but might not imply PROTOCOL_ERROR or STREAM_ERROR on receipt).
>
> Although there have been some tentative proposals for additional options since, I haven't heard a clamour for support for them, so I think these are realistically the ways we can go.
>
> As stated before, there will no doubt be tweaking and adjustments made to these, but I think we're in a place where we can choose a general direction.
>
> I'd like to hear:
>
> 1) Your preferred outcome (if any)
> 2) Whether you can live with the other option, and if not, why
>
> "I have no preference" is useful information too.
>
> If you indicate you can't live with one (or both) of the options, you MUST give a detailed, relevant reason as to why; omitting the reason means your "can't live with" will be ignored.
>
> Thanks,
>
> P.S. Please state *your* preference, not what you think the WG can live with.
>
> P.P.S. This is not a call for more discussion; please resist replying to others' preferences.
>
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 06:31:48 UTC

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