- From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2025 09:33:52 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
- Cc: Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>, Yaroslav Rosomakho <yrosomakho@zscaler.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 9:09 AM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2025, at 01:00, Kazuho Oku wrote: > > At the same time, I share the pain of Yaroslav and David. Because > > Capsules is a TLV format nested on top of HTTP, when using Capsules, we > > have three layers of TLV now, i.e., QUIC STREAM frames, HTTP/3 DATA > > frames, and Capsules. > > There might be multiple layers of overhead, but there is no need to buffer. I'm not convinced of the need of this. Not just because of the added complexity, but because the value is pretty marginal. Ben's proposed indirection can unwind all the layers, but I challenge the relative value of the added complexity. Of any of the options. It depends on what the layers give to each other. If the expectation on the HTTP/3 layer is that the application visible stream comes from the QUIC layer as bunch of DATA frames that are each complete, vs. dealing with each byte as it comes in from a partial one, than an additional buffer is required. However I imagine that this is a) rare and b) can be structured so the buffer is most of the time not used (as most sensible implementations will throw the DATA frame on a STREAM frame into a packet as soon as they can, so the receiver doesn't buffer at all if they notice this has happened). Sincerely, Watson > -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2025 16:34:10 UTC