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 19:35:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbcj8YeUC41pO2PdcDQ6Uq8a+YyrJkGM15fHep3kMmMT4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
Apparently I wasn't clear enough... I'm +1 on having a >16k header frame
size but have no particular number in mind. Greg's proposal re: frame size
seems reasonable. I'm +1 on Jeff's proposal to drop the reference set, but
do not believe it goes far enough.

- James
On Jul 8, 2014 7:20 PM, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 02:36:24 UTC

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