- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 22:27:10 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Yutaka Hirano <yhirano@google.com>, Andy Green <andy@warmcat.com>, Robert Collins <robertc@robertcollins.net>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 01:17:41PM -0800, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 25 November 2014 at 11:55, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > What is the benefit to preventing reframing? The negative of such a restriction is that intermediaries will be unable to utilize their knowledge of their network topology to improve performance. > > > It would appear that Yukata and Andy want to use HTTP/2 frame > boundaries as the basis for WS frame boundaries. That implies that > you need to prevent blind reframing. Since reframing is an inherent > part of HTTP/2, I note that this would be unwise. (And for more than > just the reasons you describe.) I agree. Let's not reinvent application-aware chunking... Also I note that we can already have tunnels over HTTP/2, so there's nothing which prevents one form passing the whole WS stream inside. Sure it's a double encoding, but that's really WS/1 over HTTP, regardless of the HTTP version. We could later work on WS/2 which would benefit more efficiently from H2 framing if that makes sense at all, but let's not try to optimize first then fix... Willy
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 21:28:26 UTC