- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 14:59:06 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Off topic slightly, but FYI we are also starting to receive complaints from Squid users about hitting the gmail limits in HTTP/1.1. Amos On 2014-07-03 13:26, Mike Bishop wrote: > During our SPDY development in IE, we actually hit that limit with a > single connection. ☺ > > From: Roberto Peon [mailto:grmocg@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 5:24 PM > To: Mark Nottingham > Cc: William Chan (陈智昌); Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo); HTTP Working > Group; Peter Lepeska > Subject: Re: #529: Working around concurrency limits > > SHOULD is the right thing here. > And it is testable, though annoying to do--annoyingly, gmail already > tests for/enforces something like this, with a substantially low > concurrency limit. > Opening multiple HTTP/2 connections to > mail.google.com<http://mail.google.com> would result in users not > being able to receive all of their attachments. > > -=R > > On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Mark Nottingham > <mnot@mnot.net<mailto:mnot@mnot.net>> wrote: > Given that it’s not testable, and based on the feedback so far, I > think softening the SHOULD to prose is the right way to go. > > Can everyone live with that? > > > On 3 Jul 2014, at 5:26 am, William Chan (陈智昌) > <willchan@chromium.org<mailto:willchan@chromium.org>> wrote: > >> +peter >> >> On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Richard Wheeldon (rwheeldo) >> <rwheeldo@cisco.com<mailto:rwheeldo@cisco.com>> wrote: >> 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." >> >> Peter might disagree with this statement. >> >> Overall, like you, I feel this is primarily an editorial issue. There >> are definitely reasons to open multiple connections, and clients are >> going to do them if they feel like they need to. But I do think it's >> overall good to encourage using fewer connections. I'm not going to >> comment any more on this because I feel like it's more bikeshedding >> than anything. >> >> >> 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<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/ >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 02:59:41 UTC