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

Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 10:31:16 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NHNOLtRAJ6OjfokR+AqO+mvFDC+2tjDeVvz9LypbhXsoQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 19 July 2014 04:24, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did I miss anything else pertinent to the discussion?


Yes - the option c - namely the "drop continuations and fragment headers
proposal" in the wiki.

It avoids the role back issues of a).  Can work with either a compressed
header limit, an uncompressed header limit or no header limit. supports
streaming headers & unlimited headers.  It can be interleaved if we wish
and while that may slightly increase the DoS surface, it is at a big gain
in protection from HOL blocking and multiplexing quality of service, plus
it does not require interleaving support - just allows it.

I really think it was the best proposal that consider all the 'can't live
with' points raised on this subject.  But it really did not get a fair
consideration (not blaming the chair for that - I saw the same lack of
enthusiasm as he did in the WG).

It is a fine mess that we find ourselves in!

cheers






-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Saturday, 19 July 2014 00:31:44 UTC

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