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

Re: H2 HEADERS and flow control

From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 10:54:15 -0700
Message-ID: <CANV5PPV+sxL=gT2+bdc35WAB=3DDLZH_Puwuz8am1DUv4r_TCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

> If we accept that most implementations will have a limit on header size
> <=16KB for 99.99% of users, then including the header frame sizes in the
> window accounting will at least remove the incentive for applications to
> move data to the headers to avoid flow control.  Ie sending headers will
> still have a cost - only that it is paid by your data frames rather than
> your headers/continuations.
>

I'm not convinced this is the case, though. If you have some bad (or at
least selfish) actor that is already shoving data into headers to avoid
flow control, then I would imagine this situation would make them want to
shove even MORE data into headers, since it's still not flow-controlled,
but harms their data. What's the "best" way around that for one of those
actors? Put it ALL in headers. Perhaps I'm just more pessimistic than you
are, though :)

Note, I am (like you) definitely not suggesting (or trying to re-open) the
flow controlled headers argument. I was already against flow controlled
headers. I just think that this provides the worst of both worlds.
--
Peace,
  -Nick
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 17:54:42 UTC

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