- From: Nicholas Hurley <hurley@todesschaf.org>
- Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:44:09 -0700
- To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CANV5PPWurxK2+4gatnxRH-ryCpUuk0xVpr0FUGzc0fwkuNfo8g@mail.gmail.com>
While I'm a fan of removing the reference set (which has come up multiple times before), I'm not a big fan of the rest of the changes proposed - they're much more invasive than Greg's proposal. Being required to split the HPACK encoding at JUST the right point to fit in a 64k frame is a much uglier change than asking "I've generated more than 16k of headers. Does my peer support a frame size that this fits in?" Given a choice between the two (and without a choice of "keep the status quo" - which is still far and away my preference), I would much rather have a simple setting with jumbo frames (Greg, et al's proposal). So, even though we aren't voting, I'll give this my proverbial -1 and change my -1 on Greg's proposal to a +/-0 if we could keep the status quo, or a strong +1 if we've come to consensus on dispensing with the status quo. That comes with a couple caveats - I would want to see a larger minimum for the max frame size (256 is laughably small, and is a really good way to shoot oneself in the foot really easily - I propose 4k, based on the numbers I see in Firefox's telemetry for compressed header size), and I don't like the dynamic changing of frame size on a per-stream basis (which feels both too invasive, and WAY too easy to get wrong). -- Peace, -Nick On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2014, at 5:01 PM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:39 AM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > > To be clear, the proposal is: > > > > 1) Remove the reference set from HPACK (use "Linear-H") > > > > +1; Kazu's data convinces me entirely. > > > > 2) Increase the frame size to 16-bits > > > > +1 to increase the size. I would support going larger; the artificial > limits never provided value in SPDY nor H2. I liked Greg's proposal > generally. > > > > 3) Allow interleaving of HEADERS frames > > 4) Remove the "\0" separator hack. > > > > +1; these were hacks unresolved due to the global compressor. > > > > > > Coupling this with my earlier proposal to add a "SYN_STREAM" header > > would also allow us to: > > > > 5) Remove CONTINUATION frames entirely > > > > +1; this makes things much simpler. > > > > 6) Move END_* flags to the last HEADERS frame > > > > +1; makes things simpler. > > > > 7) Flow control HEADERS frames > > > > +1; this is just simpler too. > > > > Wow, are we actually approaching consensus? :) > > -- > Jason T. Greene > WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect > JBoss, a division of Red Hat > > >
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 22:44:38 UTC