- From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 14:53:47 -0500
- To: Ian Swett <ianswett=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <fenix@fb.com>, Ryan Hamilton <rch@google.com>, Jana Iyengar <jri.ietf@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 12:26:51PM -0500, Ian Swett wrote:
> I'm confused by the amount of pushback this got relative to all
> the work we have done to make PUSH and something approximating
> (since they're actually different) H2 priorities work on top of
> QUIC.
The main knock on the EOS DATA proposal is that its benefits are
marginal relative to the perceived issues its adoption may engender.
The same cannot (or could not) be said about priorities and push
promises.
> If I remember correctly, your main argument against this framing change was
> that the existing DATA frame with a length becomes largely useless and
^^^^^^^
> might be under-exercised.
s/useless/unused/
> That makes me feel like we've over-optimized for the complex
> special cases and made a design error or two at least one step
> prior to this proposal.
I disagree. The current HTTP/3 framing mechanism is not over-
optimized; it is designed to handle the general case. It is the
EOS DATA proposal that is an actual optimization.
- Dmitri.
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2018 19:54:13 UTC