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

CONTINUATION was: #540: "jumbo" frames

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 16:49:49 +0000
To: <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
CC: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186FB6D0@sem002pd>
On Friday,27 June 2014 08:30, squid3@treenet.co.nz<mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
>On 27/06/2014 2:22 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote:

>> On 26 June 2014 16:33, K.Morgan wrote:

>>> Nobody is arguing against support.  If jumbo data frames should be an extension, so should jumbo header frames (i.e. CONTINUATION).

>>

>> There's a fairly straightforward calculus.

>> Can HTTP do X -> HTTP/2 MUST do X.

>>

>> [snip]

>> I'd rather not re-open that debate, but I think that your concern with

>> transfer-encoding fixates on the means and not the capability.

>

> Whereas retaining CONTINUATION and rejecting jumbo-HEADER extension is not fixating on one means ?

>

> Something smells fishy there.



Here is a snippet from the NYC interim minutes [1] regarding the topics of “headers and flow control” and “dealing with large header blocks”…


Roberto is reassessing the problem, basically that headers are unbounded (not flow controlled), which is problematic for implementations.

[snip]

roberto discusses his idea of creation of a new METADATA frame that is flow controlled and doesn't change connection state.

[snip]

roberto: we have to fix this

will: why? we've lived with it for this long.

roberto: that's because no one has tried to abuse this yet.

[snip]

roberto: there is a way that we can make hpack streamable.

[snip]

jeff: is flow control of headers a big enough issue that we're willing to absorb a non-trivial rewrite



Aren’t these a lot of the same things we’ve been bringing up?



Speaking of NYC I noticed that nearly every open issue was closed right after that meeting and the changes *decided at that meeting* were published shortly thereafter in a new draft. How does that work??



RFC7282 [2]:

  Final decisions are supposed to be taken on the mailing list,

  which reinforces the idea that we come to consensus by looking at the

  open issues and not counting heads.





[1] https://github.com/httpwg/wg-materials/blob/master/interim-14-06/minutes.md starting with the line “topic: issue 480 headers and flow control”

[2] http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc7282






This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Friday, 27 June 2014 16:54:05 UTC

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