- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 22:03:37 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 07:47:08PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20140703193435.GB18168@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: > > >thus I don't think there's any gain in mandating a window > >larger than 31 or 32 bits. > > Right now ? No. > > But I find the margin is too small for HTTP/2, we should design for > at least 10 years lifetime before people run into trouble. Given that TCP cannot do better with its 32-bit sequence numbers, and anything but TCP/IPv4 seems unlikely to replace it anytime soon, I must say I'm not worried even for the 10 next years (and don't get me wrong, I too am concerned about long term). > Also these four bytes don't add wire overhead so there is no > performance penalty for being on the safe side. That's perfectly true, the only cost is 8 extra memory bytes per stream (4 per direction). I'd say I don't really care about them, it's only that I'm not convinced that there is at least a *chance* for them to ever be used. It all depends if there are more risks of seeing bogus implementations or not just for this. Willy
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:04:05 UTC