- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 13:15:40 +1000
- To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 18 Jul 2014, at 12:53 pm, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > On 18/07/2014 12:44 p.m., Mark Nottingham wrote: >> We've had a rollicking discussion about the design tradeoffs in CONTINUATION, especially regarding HOL blocking and DoS considerations. >> >> I see very little new information entering that discussion, and I think everyone has come to understand the tradeoffs. For a refresher, please see the wiki: >> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/wiki/ContinuationProposals >> >> I proposed two options the other day: >> >> a) Remove CONTINUATION from the specification and add a new setting that dictates the maximum HEADERS/PUSH_PROMISE frame size (as distinct from max_frame_size) a peer is willing to receive. I.e., the setting refers to the compressed header size. >> >> b) Keep CONTINUATION in the specification, and add a new setting that advises the maximum header set size (i.e,. uncompressed) a peer is willing to receive (but might not imply PROTOCOL_ERROR or STREAM_ERROR on receipt). >> >> Although there have been some tentative proposals for additional options since, I haven't heard a clamour for support for them, so I think these are realistically the ways we can go. >> >> As stated before, there will no doubt be tweaking and adjustments made to these, but I think we're in a place where we can choose a general direction. >> >> I'd like to hear: >> >> 1) Your preferred outcome (if any) > > (A). > >> 2) Whether you can live with the other option, and if not, why > > "CONTINUATION without a length limit" adds a great complexity to the > intermediary code and opens us to unacceptible levels of resource > commitments for the rare[1] chance of being useful. In 1.1 this is only > just coped with, in h2 with multiplexing it grows unacceptible. > > "CONTINUATION with a length limit" is simpler both for spec and > implementation when written in the form of a Large Frame > unlimited-length value for use only by 1:1 "TCP tunnel" type proxying > where h2 as a whole ceases relevance. > > [1] Specifically the unlimited length need is rare. As opposed to > knowable but large lengths, which are far more common. Hi Amos -- please be explicit -- is this the reasoning for your preference, or a statement of why you can't live with it? (I ask because "can't live with it" is a big statement either way, and we need to make sure it's unambiguous when it's said). Thanks, -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 03:16:13 UTC