- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:01 -0700
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Hasan Khalil <mian.hasan.khalil@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I've been thinking about this over the weekend and I remain unmoved by this thread. I think that there's a kernel of something here, but I remain unconvinced that this is something that we need to do anything about this. Basically, it's not HTTP. On 9 May 2014 17:02, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > an expression of sequencing I think that this is key. RPC protocols often depend on some sort of ordering semantic in order to get decent throughput. That and layer upon layer of metadata. The protocol Roberto looks a little like HTTP, maybe even to the point of being a changeling [1]. I think that we need to discuss to what extent we want to support changelings. The alternative is that Roberto's unnamed customers need to think about doing option (h) and put every RPC call on its own stream, using header fields or some other mechanism to express dependencies [2]. And yes, I'm aware that this isn't the only externality in play. --Martin [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changeling [2] Of course that this will cause some intermediaries to have non-standard hacks in them to support backends that rely on getting dependent streams at the same backend instance. And that sucks, but I believe that to be the de facto state of these sorts of intermediary anyway.
Received on Monday, 12 May 2014 16:57:29 UTC