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

Re: Large Frames, Continuations, Flow Control, and changing HPACK

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 19:20:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfoN4HyPnor8KcnyJOszxNOasvcqr5czVNT0LCb4EPbKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Having not been a fan of the reference set from the onset (I argued
*long ago* that it should just go away) I'm definitely +1 on Jeff's
proposal. (of course, I'd MUCH rather see *stateful* header
compression get tossed out entirely).

Also..

  +1 on Greg's proposal re: larger frame sizes and dropping
CONTINUATION entirely.
  +1 on PHK's proposal to allow negotiation of header compression scheme

I would also take a moment to reflect on the fact that HPACK is not
actually required for HTTP/2 to meet it's chartered goals. I know
there are arguments that say that header compression makes
multiplexing better, but that doesn't mean that (a) it has to be HPACK
and (b) that it has to be stateful. The overwhelming majority of the
problems currently being discussed simply vanish if we eliminate the
idea that header transmission could, in any way, modify connection
state.

- James

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 6:39 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> I think we're getting very close to consensus on Greg (et al)'s proposal, so clarity here would be appreciated.
>
> Please be specific about what you like about this proposal --
>
> a) Getting rid of the reference set (Jeff's "1", maybe "4") is a good idea, and complementary to Greg (et al)'s proposal
> b) This complete set of changes is a preferable alternative to Greg (et al)'s proposal
> c) Don't know, need to talk more.
>
> Thanks,
>[snip]
Received on Wednesday, 9 July 2014 02:20:54 UTC

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