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

Re: HEADERS and flow control

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 11:32:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbcm3AxDcmfHNfWHF8knXm_veb93hLNFwnqNi5o8RCfBtw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hasan Khalil <mian.hasan.khalil@gmail.com>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
half-hearted = shoehorning in one additional flow-controlled headers
frame opcode in order to meet one specific use case example as opposed
to providing a proper extensibility model.

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM, Hasan Khalil
<mian.hasan.khalil@gmail.com> wrote:
> Care to explain which part of this would be half-hearted?
>
>
> On Mon May 12 2014 at 2:16:04 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Honestly, if we had properly dealt with this a year ago like I had
>> suggested it would be a non-issue today. I certainly sympathize with
>> the use case, but given the state of things as they stand now, I'm not
>> convinced that it's worthwhile trying to half-heartedly jam this back
>> in now.
>>
>> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > We are unable to express something in http2 that we previously could
>> > with
>> > http/1 pipelining/and/or http/1.1 chunking.
>> >
>> > That is not satisfactory.
>> >
>> > -=R
>> >
>> > On May 12, 2014 9:57 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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 18:33:31 UTC

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