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

Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:03:10 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNqd0biHiTR6pyCGaJEC5mnvyd5BW3woWABLF82CWP_A6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
My top preference is to close the issue with no action.

My next preference is option [b]. In the best of all worlds it just adds
new information about an existing problem (the existing implementation
header limit) which is helpful.

I very strongly dislike [a] for reasons already stated in this thread:
http/1 tail compat and rewind.

On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> 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)
> 2) Whether you can live with the other option, and if not, why
> "I have no preference" is useful information too.
> If you indicate you can't live with one (or both) of the options, you MUST
> give a detailed, relevant reason as to why; omitting the reason means your
> "can't live with" will be ignored.
> Thanks,
> P.S. Please state *your* preference, not what you think the WG can live
> with.
> P.P.S. This is not a call for more discussion; please resist replying to
> others' preferences.
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 18 July 2014 13:03:41 UTC

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