On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 3:47 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> > wrote: > > >> My understanding is that H1 is, despite keep-alive and pipelining and all >> that, essentially request-response-done, > > > H1 is request response, but as used in 6455 that request response is > simply used to bootstrap into a totally different protocol that has control > of the TCP channel at which point its request/response properties are not > germane. > > >> >>> >> I sure also would like to see some data. But then, has the lack of mux in >> H1 been a problem? > > > yes it is the most serious, imo, problem with h1. Trying to attack it with > an increase in H1 parallelism leads to congestion control and priority > sub-optimalities, and trying to work around it with pipelines creates > unworkable head of line problems. mux and priority were the answers to that > and they are really the key features of h2. > > >> If no, why is it in H2? If yes, why is it a problem for HTTP, but not for >> WS? >> >> > It could be a problem for ws - but the advocates for the work have not > embraced that argument. Differences in workloads might be the > differentiator. dunno. that's why I started the thread :) > The lack of mux is really the only major problem, but mostly for browsers (multiple tabs of the same page) as I understand. I guess service workers could help but it would then require app-level multiplexing. On non-browsers, I wonder how often a single process needs open more than one long-lived session to the same host. And for clients with only a single session, TCP mux adds overhead too but that's a separate topic. Our biggest motivation behind WiSH is to simplify the Web (infrastructure, frameworks ...). As mentioned in the bidi-web survey doc, as far as apps are concerned, the only thing that is missing from http/* to support WS APIs is really just message framing. And if you need mux and/or on browsers (same-origin resources too), sure, do http/2 or quic. And thanks for starting the thread.
Received on Thursday, 15 December 2016 16:40:04 UTC