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

Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 01:16:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABaLYCvnOdX3pJ5au1bz5PofSsVdQn=1MDkA=atU7EV-DThaLQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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
>

Desired outcome:  neither.

a) Cannot live with it.  As written here, this breaks compat with HTTP/1.1
and is a non-starter.
b) Can live with it, but recommend against the new setting proposed.

Desired outcome would remove continuations and have big frames.
 (continuations are required to be adjacent anyway, so instead just
increase the frame size - its simpler yet the same effect).

Mike




>
> "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 08:16:49 UTC

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