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

Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)

From: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:44:44 -0700
Message-ID: <53A1C1FC.3060800@fb.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "C.Brunhuber@iaea.org" <C.Brunhuber@iaea.org>
Yes, this is precisely what I was getting at with the layering issue I 
brought up. It seems like a layering violation to expose segments to the 
application. It also doesn't map to HTTP/1.1 concepts (I don't see how 
it maps to chunked encoding since there is no chunk length). This seems 
like an example of a feature in the protocol that is not backwards 
compatible with HTTP/1.1. In this case, the incompatibility is at the 
API level, not the semantic level.

On 06/17/2014 01:51 PM, Mike Bishop wrote:
>
> Daniel's latter point applies to several of the "Intermediaries MUST 
> [NOT]" requirements in the spec -- since someone could conceivably 
> build intermediaries sitting on top of server and client APIs and 
> tying them together (and people do, with ours), it's not possible for 
> such an intermediary to comply with some of these unless we propagate 
> framing-layer or compressor-layer knowledge all the way up to the app 
> and back down....
>
> *From:*Daniel Sommermann [mailto:dcsommer@fb.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2014 9:23 AM
> *To:* Jeff Pinner; K.Morgan@iaea.org
> *Cc:* HTTP Working Group; C.Brunhuber@iaea.org
> *Subject:* Re: END_SEGMENT? (#397)
>
> Apologies for the (very) late response on this topic. My high level 
> question here is if this is strictly needed for interop with 1.1. If 
> not, I don't think it warrants the extra complexity and constraints on 
> intermediary behavior.
>
> On 04/17/2014 09:25 AM, Jeff Pinner wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:52 AM, <K.Morgan@iaea.org
>     <mailto:K.Morgan@iaea.org>> wrote:
>
>         What is the purpose of END_SEGMENT?
>
>     END_SEGMENTS allows the layering of record-based semantics onto
>     the framing layer.
>
>     Consider this use case in HTTP/1.1. An API provides a stream of
>     data using HTTP/1.1 chunked encoding. Each chunk contains a single
>     record, and the length of this record is indicated by the chunk
>     length. In HTTP/1.1 the length of these chunks was unconstrained,
>     but when translating into HTTP/2, these chunks must be segmented
>     into multiple data frames to fit within the frame size limit.
>
>     If the chunk delineation was meaningful, then END_SEGMENT allows
>     this meaning to be preserved.
>
>
> I'm not exactly sure how END_SEGMENT alone can be used to preserve 
> chunk semantics. If you are proxying from 2 to chunked 1.1, you would 
> need some other flag to know to add transfer-encoding: chunked and 
> then other flags to know the chunk lengths. Roberto implied in an 
> earlier message that END_SEGMENT is needed to preserve chunk boundaries.
>
>
>     The flag is also useful for layering other record-based protocols
>     on top of HTTP.
>
>
> Couldn't such protocols include their own delimiters? If a protocol 
> running on HTTP/2 is record based, the record delimiters should be 
> incorporated into the contents of the DATA frame. Otherwise, this 
> seems like an unnecessary layering violation.
>
> I'm curious who plans to use this feature and why END_SEGMENT is the 
> only way to do it. While not exactly a DOS vulnerability for proxies, 
> placing requirements on the framing layer limits how proxies can 
> respond in low memory situations (e.g. a memory-constrained proxy 
> might need to forward a partially received DATA frame as 2 smaller 
> frames). The "MUST NOT coalesce" requirement in particular seems out 
> of place. As with any feature, the complexity is also a potential 
> source of bugs.
>
> The other point brought up is that many HTTP APIs will not expose this 
> segment information, potentially making it difficult to conform to the 
> "intermediaries MUST NOT coalesce" requirement.
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2014 16:47:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC