Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Tue, 20 January 2015 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 444821ACF5A; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:39:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E3LdoOfWl1tj; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:39:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15C661ACE1E; Mon, 19 Jan 2015 23:39:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2835; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1421739569; x=1422949169; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to; bh=1Wcfr3HOShWjQNxGLPol2yMlHUDc3kx9xS3d/0Ev8c4=; b=NQPnjqVjuVmBC8+VJz8iPhSEPJsxkp+eCFoaHx0K0zKVbbx0V3ZobRG8 j+KxF0i1zekV/3/zzn386+70wK3P0VKk3dboDmLwtP2VOxObkDj5D8Wn1 D8pChStGsKQlSWLZ3SW8BxDBmGxohBuAFFmyjQHb/3+5bTNH5R7mp0M5u I=;
X-Files: signature.asc : 486
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ArkEADQFvlStJssW/2dsb2JhbABbg1hYgwfDLYVxAoFhAQEBAQF9hA0BAQQjVQEQCxgJFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGAQwBBQIBAYgoDbl6lBIBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEXjzIFQgeCaIFBBZAogSlPhVCBSoRli3sig289MYEFgT4BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,432,1418083200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="318804335"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Jan 2015 07:39:27 +0000
Received: from [10.61.196.18] ([10.61.196.18]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t0K7dQ3p025496; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:39:26 GMT
Message-ID: <54BE0633.2000603@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:39:31 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
References: <54BCDE62.9090902@dial.pipex.com> <CABkgnnUidujHKnNYKdzYV24pWP6G24_2brMB1fypYQSqmXeDqA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUidujHKnNYKdzYV24pWP6G24_2brMB1fypYQSqmXeDqA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="aMUxuqN1pU1EpjwFkbb0d5mvoDoaWfpdl"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/7vRDB5tibpq6_0k-gxMvHxEqkIo>
Cc: General area reviewing team <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-httpbis-http2.all@tools.ietf.org, IETF Discussion List <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art last call review of draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-16
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:39:31 -0000

Hi,

On 1/20/15 8:17 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 19 January 2015 at 02:37, Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>> Summary:
>> Almost ready.  A well written document with just a few nits really.  I am
>> slightly surprised (having not been following httpbis in detail) that HTTP/2
>> is so tightly wedded to TCP - this is doubtless pragmatic but it adds to the
>> ossification of the Internet and makes me slightly suspicious that it is an
>> attempt to really confirm HTTP/2 as the waist of the neo-Internet.  Can't we
>> ever use any other transport?
> I think that - overall - the desire for the timely replacement of
> HTTP/1.1 was stronger than the desire to attain perfection.
>
> And rather than ossifying, the general view is that ALPN clears a path
> to more changes in the future.
>
> If you want to talk about the waist of the neo-Internet, I think
> identifying HTTP more generally is appropriate; we're only really
> upgrading a small part of it.  And there are ongoing plans to continue
> to upgrade the entire protocol.  But our relevance is only defined by
> what we ship, and this is a significant improvement that isn't worth
> holding back for years while we ponder more fundamental changes.

THIS version of HTTP is very much focused on multiple streams of
communication.  There is the equivalent of source quench,
prioritization, and windowing; and indeed the intent is to reduce the
number of parallel TCP connections.  This having been said, I don't see
this point as against HTTP2, but a reflection of the difficulty in
making substantial changes to the transport layer.  The IAB have had one
workshop that touched on this point (ITAT)[1] in which Elwyn
participated, and next week we will hold another (SEMI)[2].

Eliot
[1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7305
[2] https://www.iab.org/activities/workshops/semi/