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

#541: CONTINUATION

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2014 21:12:12 +1000
Message-Id: <0E4E566E-11DF-4D52-9163-C836B5F93120@mnot.net>
Cc: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, "Ludin, Stephen" <sludin@akamai.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, block.rxckin.beats@gmail.com, Adrian Cole <adrian.f.cole@gmail.com>, matsumoto_r@net.ist.i.kyoto-u.ac.jp, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Daniel Stenberg <daniel@haxx.se>, "Flack, Martin" <mflack@akamai.com>, t@motd.kr, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Jeroen de Borst <J.deBorst@F5.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
<https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/541>

There’s been strong pushback on the current design of CONTINUATION from some interested parties, and a few implementers. Despite the fact that this design is the result of multiple meetings demonstrating strong consensus, and the fact that we have a schedule-focused charter, this issue deserves a good hearing.

I think everyone now has an idea of the issues and trade-offs involved, as well as the potential end-games. We also helpfully have a few proposals on how to move forward:

0) the status quo

1) <https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/544> and variants thereof (e.g., not including CONTINUATION in flow control; alternative syntaxes)

2) limiting header sizes to 16K (HPACK’d) in HTTP/2, as per PHK’s suggestion

There’s also another implicit option; 

3) We can’t know until we get substantial interop and deployment experience with draft-13.

I’d like to ask the implementers (as identified on the CC: line) what their preferences are, and what they can’t live with. If there’s another option, please say so, but only if it’s materially different, and you believe it has a chance of achieving consensus. 

To be clear, if you don’t say that you can’t live with something, it means that it’s an acceptable outcome. If you do, be prepared to back up such a strong stance with an equally strong argument.

Note that this is input to help determine consensus, not a vote.

Thanks,

P.S. Please keep in mind that (3) is not “wait until September, then decide it’s too late.” Achieving a reasonable consensus now is relatively pain-free, if possible; deadlocking right before we (want to) ship is something I want to avoid.

P.P.S. To anticipate some responses, a generic “jumbo frame” is off the table for this discussion; doing so doesn’t appear to have broad support, and there are strong arguments against it.


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2014 11:12:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:19 UTC