W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2019

Re: Consistency in Stream Beginnings in HTTP/3

From: Lucas Pardue <lucaspardue.24.7@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2019 19:15:05 +0100
Message-ID: <CALGR9oaU+c4HDkUubxFa5oj4FaNWyGcbzTcypp8FM9+w_2SE_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
Cc: QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thanks for summarising all of this individual discussions Mike.

I have a derivative design on the SETTINGS stream header which would
replace length-prefix with count. So rather than Express total length of
parameter ID and value, you tell the receiver how many variant pairs to
process before processing frames.

I dont think that strongly pushes the needle in one direction though.

If we reject changing the control stream, I'm presently 50/50 split between
revisiting push stream framing and just living with what we have.


On Thu, 13 Jun 2019, 18:30 Mike Bishop, <mbishop@evequefou.be> wrote:

> This discussion has happened across a collection of GitHub issues with
> largely the same participants, and I’d like to get a sense of the larger
> working group’s opinion before I work on any of these directions (or close
> all the related issues).
>
>
>
> To recap the current state:
>
>    - Unidirectional streams begin with a type byte; interpretation of the
>    remainder of the stream data depends on the type
>    - Push streams continue with a header – the Push ID as a varint –
>    followed by frames as usual
>    - Control streams don’t have a header; frames begin immediately after
>    the type byte.  However, a SETTINGS frame is required to be the first frame
>    of the stream.
>    - SETTINGS cannot be sent again thereafter or on any other stream
>
>
>
> That means there are currently two different models of how you put
> required-to-be-first information:  As a required-initial frame or as a
> header before framing begins.
>
>
>
> There are a couple of paths forward that have been discussed:
>
>    - *Stay as-is.*  SETTINGS is a frame in HTTP/2, so we’re keeping it
>    that way for consistency.  We’ve previously decided not to permit changes
>    to settings to avoid the question of synchronization.  The reasons to
>    change are not urgent.
>    - *Make the Push ID a required-initial frame.  *Proposed in #2526;
>    rejected in London.
>    - *Make SETTINGS a stream header.*  Proposed in #2783.
>       - *Argument for:*  Gets rid of the concept of required-initial
>       frames, in combination with #2781.  Consistent with the Push Stream header.
>       - *Argument against:*  Push ID isn’t a length-prefixed structure,
>       just a single varint.  We already have facilities for reading
>       length-prefixed structures in frame handling.
>    - *Allow multiple SETTINGS.*  The synchronization requirement on
>    SETTINGS is hairy when values are reduced, because in-flight activity might
>    now violate a peer’s restriction.  Allowing SETTINGS to be sent at any
>    time, but only increase values, would also mean they need not be the first
>    frame, eliminating the concept of required-initial frames.
>       - Complication:  What does this mean for clients’ remembered
>       settings and server’s remembered settings as stored in NSTs?  If a client
>       updates stored settings but retains a NST from earlier in the connection,
>       the server and client could have divergent views of the server’s settings
>       on a future 0-RTT connection.
>    - *Allow omitting SETTINGS.*  If the server doesn’t need to change
>    anything from the client’s initial settings, then the server can just not
>    send a SETTINGS frame.  Once you’ve sent something else on the control
>    stream, though, you can’t send one later if you change your mind.
>
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
Received on Thursday, 13 June 2019 18:47:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:15:34 UTC