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

Re: HEADERS and flow control

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:57:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW2Dm=TTLVzWg-dhFsS7hxy-G8eeuLcFF0-xVWR_vmaRQ@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC