W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Fwd: HTTP/2 editorial problems <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17>

From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 18:49:04 +0000
Message-ID: <201503061849.t26In5Z9014931@bagheera.jungle.bt.co.uk>
To: <mbelshe@chromium.org>, <fenix@google.com>, <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Following up my own post - I omitted 3 more editorial problems - see inline...

>Date: Fri, 06 Mar 2015 15:52:56 +0000
>To: mbelshe@chromium.org, fenix@google.com, martin.thomson@gmail.com
>From: Bob Briscoe <bob.briscoe@bt.com>
>Subject: HTTP/2 editorial problems <draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17>
>Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
>
>HTTP/2 editor & co-authors,
>
>As I said, treat this as a late review from a clueful but fresh pair 
>of eyes. So my misunderstandings might match those of a typical 
>reader, as opposed to someone who has read many previous drafts.
>
>==Comprehensibility / Ambiguity==
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-5>5. 
>Streams and Multiplexing
>Definition of "stream":
>It is not at all clear that the stream ID is the same in both 
>directions. I think the authors assume that readers will extrapolate 
>the definition of a stream /ID/ from the definition of a /stream/. 
>But I read it as the endpoints each hold stream state which 
>associates two different stream IDs in each direction (one odd and 
>one even) to comprise a stream.
>
>Also, what is a "bi-directional sequence of frames"? If this means 
>anything, it means that the frames in both directions can be placed 
>in a single ordered sequence. I don't think this is the intended 
>meaning, because the two directions surely overlap.

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-5>5. 
Streams and Multiplexing
"     In
       particular, the order of HEADERS, and DATA frames is semantically
       significant."
I couldn't find anywhere in the spec where this semantic is 
specified. A cross ref would be useful. Or perhaps I've misunderstood 
what this sentence means, which could imply it needs clarifying.

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16#section-5.1>5.1. 
Stream States

Figure 2 implies there are a very large number of possible state 
transitions that are not permitted. For instance, in each of the 7 
states, any of the 10 possible frame types could arrive, but many 
would be invalid. For instance, I believe it would be an error for a 
DATA frame to appear on an idle stream without a prior HEADER frame. 
I don't believe that all such frame ordering errors have been specified.

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16#section-5.1>5.1. 
Stream States

It should be made clear in the bullets about the PUSH_PROMISE under 
the idle state that PP sent on one stream (A) brings the /referenced/ 
stream (B) out of idle state. (Between draft-16 and -17 this was 
clarified in the PUSH_PROMISE section, but not here).

The rest of the diagram shows transitions for the stream that a frame 
is on. So without clarification, this part of the draft implies the 
stream the PP is on (A) is the one that transitions out of idle 
state. (As specified in both 6.6 and 8.2.1, a PP can only be sent on 
a stream that is itelf in the open or half-closed (remote) state.)

><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16#section-5.1>5.1. 
>Stream States
>
>Describing the process of starting to close a stream as half-closing 
>the stream leads to imprecision. It would be more precise to talk 
>instead of closing one of the half-streams (C-S or S-C). Then, 
>because HTTP/2 sits over the ordered delivery of TCP, the spec can 
>very precisely define when each half-stream closes, from the 
>perspective of each end:
>
>The ES flag (or an end-stream implied by a HEADERS frame) could be 
>precisely defined as an end-half-stream (EHS) message, as follows:
>* On the A-B half-stream, the sender can send no more messages on 
>the half-stream after it sends an EHS message, and the receiver can 
>expect not to receive any data on that half-stream after it receives 
>the EHS message.
>* Then, on the B-A half-stream, B can still send data on the 
>half-stream until it responds with an EHS message. And A can expect 
>to continue to receive B-A half-stream data until it receives the EHS message.
>
>The RST_STREAM frame would be easy to define precisely too (except 
>in the one case identified):
>* On the A-B half-stream, the sender can send no more messages on 
>the half-stream after it sends a RST_STREAM frame, and the receiver 
>can expect not to receive any data on that half-stream after it 
>receives the RST_STREAM frame.
>* On the B-A half-stream, B cannot send data on the half-stream as 
>soon as it receives the RST_STREAM frame. The imprecise part is how 
>A knows when it can expect to stop receiving more data from B. If A 
>could see the ACK of its RST_Stream at the TCP layer, it would know; 
>but it can't.
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-5.1>5.1. 
>Stream States
>"  open: [...]
>      Either endpoint can send a RST_STREAM frame from this state,
>       causing it to transition immediately to "closed".
>"
>'it' is ambiguous. I think an endpoint transitions to closed 
>immediately it sends RST_STREAM, and immediately it receives RST_STREAM.
>
>
>
>==Nits==
>
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-2.2>2.2. 
>Conventions and Terminology
>definition of frame:
>s/header/frame header/ (disambiguates from HTTP header).
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-3.2>3.2. 
>Starting HTTP/2 for "http" URIs
>I suggest the following section order would be clearer after 3.1:
>3.2. Starting HTTP/2 for "http" URIs
>3.2.1. Starting HTTP/2 for "http" URIs without prior knowledge
>        Text of current 3.2.
>3.2.1.1. HTTP2-Settings Header Field
>          Text of current 3.2.1.
>3.2.2. Starting HTTP/2 for "http" URIs with prior knowledge
>        Text of current 3.4.
>3.2.2.1. HTTP/2 Connection Preface
>          Text of current 3.5.
>3.3. Starting HTTP/2 for "https" URIs
>        Text of current 3.3.
>
>Even better: start with HTTP/2 for https URIs then for http URIs
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-3.2>3.2. 
>Starting HTTP/2 for "http" URIs
>s/an payload/
>  /a payload/
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-3.3>3.3. 
>Starting HTTP/2 for "https" URIs
>s/a client/such a client/ (2nd para)
>s/a server/a TLS server/
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-4>4. 
>HTTP Frames
>"Once the HTTP/2 connection is established"
>The term 'established' is not defined. It seems it means after the 
>first settings frame after the preface. Or does it mean after the 
>first settings frame is acknowledged (requiring a round of delay)?
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-4.1>4.1. 
>Frame Format
>s/Length: The length of the frame/
>  /Length: The length in octets of the frame/
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-5>5. 
>Streams and Multiplexing
>s/Recipients process frames in the order they are received./
>  /Recipients process frames in the order TCP delivers them to the 
> HTTP receiver./
>
>"  Endpoints do not
>    coordinate the creation of streams; they are created unilaterally by
>    either endpoint.  The negative consequences of a mismatch in states
>    are limited to the "closed" state after sending RST_STREAM, where
>    frames might be received for some time after closing.
>"
>The second sentence presumes the reader has made a few conceptual 
>leaps triggered by the first sentence, without stating those leaps.
>
>"      Therefore, a
>       RST_STREAM is needed to close an unwanted promised stream.
>"
>s/a RST_STREAM/
>  /another RST_STREAM/
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-5.3>5.3. 
>Stream priority
>s/prefer its peer allocate resources/
>  /prefer its peer to allocate resources/
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-6.3>6.3. 
>PRIORITY
>"The PRIORITY frame always identifies a stream."
>
>This amended text is even less clear than it was in draft-16. The 
>solution is to delete this sentence completely. I think this means a 
>priority frame has a value in the Stream ID field of its frame 
>header, which cannot be untrue anyway.
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-6.5>6.5. 
>SETTINGS
>s/Parameters are processed in the order in which they appear,/
>  /Parameters are processed in the order in which TCP delivers them,/
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-8.3>8.3. 
>The CONNECT Method
>"  Frame types other than DATA
>    or stream management frames (RST_STREAM, WINDOW_UPDATE, and PRIORITY)
>    MUST NOT be sent on a connected stream
>"
>Two paras later, this is contradicted for the case of RST_STREAM:
>"  A TCP connection error is signaled with RST_STREAM.
>"
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-9.2.2>9.2.2. 
>TLS 1.2 Cipher Suites
>s/if one of the cipher suites from the black list are negotiated/
>  /if one of the cipher suites from the black list is negotiated/
>
><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-17#section-10.5.2>10.5.2. 
>CONNECT Issues
>s/an proxy/
>  /a proxy/
>
>
>HTH
>
>
>Bob
>

________________________________________________________________
Bob Briscoe,                                                  BT 
Received on Friday, 6 March 2015 18:49:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:43 UTC