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

RE: #529: Working around concurrency limits

From: Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo) <rwheeldo@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 09:20:39 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0566CA5E9B906D40B6737DD47DA9FB8F1B5430B3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
As previously discussed, it's technically close to impossible for us to implement and undesirable in many other cases. I think this position has been well understood enough that there will be no attempt to enforce or proactively encourage any limit. Hence, it's an editorial issue rather than an interop one at this point.

However, I'd just remove the text. It's adding controversy without value IMHO. Alternatively, if we want to say something, drop the RFC2119 language. How about: "In typical browser cases, client will achieve better throughput by restricting themselves to a single HTTP/2 connections to each host and port pair, where host is derived from a URI, a selected alternative service [ALT-SVC], or a configured proxy."

That leaves the door wide open for large downloads, proxies and all the other "atypical" cases.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net] 
Sent: 02 July 2014 06:17
To: HTTP Working Group
Subject: #529: Working around concurrency limits

<https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/529>

As I just mentioned in the issue, we already limit the requirement to a SHOULD here, allowing proxies to open more connections if they feel it necessary (and indeed, this isn't something we can really test for).

Do we need to do more than that, or can we close the issue?

Regards,


--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 09:21:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:08 UTC