W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Quoting email (was: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND)

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 18:24:17 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DF8F6DB7E5D58B408041AE4D927B2F48CBB897C7@CINURCNA14.e2k.ad.ge.com>
No worries.  Was it just this one or all that I have sent?  Oddly with
this particular email, it seems to have been changed after I sent (it
looked fine before it went out, but looked odd on receipt).


I'll resend.

On 4/16/13 2:11 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Please, please, please don't reply inline without giving some sort of
>indicator that distinguishes your text from the text you are replying
>to.  I can't follow the conversation below at all.
>
>I don't want to pick on you specifically, Robby, but your email was a
>good example to use.
>
>On 16 April 2013 10:58, Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)
><robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote:
>> On 4/16/13 12:03 PM, "Roberto Peon"
>><grmocg@gmail.com<mailto:grmocg@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, most flows with http/1 are short (and bursty) flows, so
>>it is incorrect to say that they have reached steady-state w.r.t.
>>congestion control. Many resource fetches complete in between one and
>>three rtts, then much of time the connection(s) sit idle for extended
>>periods of time (seconds to minutes).
>>
>> Good point.  Most of my work with HTTP/1 (and TCP) are with long-lived
>>flows and I live in the long tail.  My gut tells me you are correct when
>>it comes to traditional web usage.
>>
>> I'm hoping Will will chime in here with data soon, but the distribution
>>on single connection cwnds as measured on traffic in the wild shows us
>>that using multiple connections puts more packets on the wire as a
>>result of init-cwnd (and thus not subject to congestion control, ouch)
>>than a single stable-state, heavily used and reused connection such as
>>Spdy or HTTP/2 would allow.
>>
>> Wouldn't Spdy or HTTP/2 still face the issues regarding steady-state
>>then?
>>
>> Part of my concern is that we may, once again, create an HTTP that
>>unfairly dominates traffic due to lots of bursty flows.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> I agree that solving the problem for http/2 alone won't fix it for
>>everything. On the other hand, we also need to act swiftly to solve
>>problems on timescales that matter to users, and http is a fine venue
>>for that. The fact that http/2 could do this doesn't stop us from coming
>>up with an opaque blob that *any* latency sensitive application protocol
>> could use to communicate with the transport layer.
>>
>> As someone stated earlier, I fear the opposite to be true.  This may
>>end up slowing down HTTP/2 and not be swift at all..
>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 18:24:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC