Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> Fri, 28 October 2016 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D2EC129631 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 A5YwdilgWlJ1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47045129551 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:48:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c0BC3-0007DW-1j for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:43:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:43:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c0BC3-0007DW-1j@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <costin@gmail.com>) id 1c0BBx-0007Cg-I6 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:43:45 +0000
Received: from mail-yw0-f182.google.com ([209.85.161.182]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <costin@gmail.com>) id 1c0BBp-0007DW-Jy for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:43:38 +0000
Received: by mail-yw0-f182.google.com with SMTP id p22so81460809ywe.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:43:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=OsDewrlxYZRGeL+k+SAn6C67bLABuR8TFYmsn6JjiWU=; b=RbB7hRAZQV5Yp0pudurNjD3IjcUUNLqiGGsIjqiQxAqq1VKIBMM1y/w4wY+WyWLYTa OC58R6bfeEBG0AzW5JE87ZAe1wlAujGWulHSvLu9EUbWD5ehIj4j18RjdT+wSBYfqszI biVSfUY5axP1opQEfSiFlERrVkTjvFaz2a05Hu1ul9T4n5TlUoMSs7tLwa3aleeXfzQn Bh8bVQJK1fZuE2hEzITQzTwVJEGo4k4KC+o0/MAk8mvTItWMJQmpHLNhn3BWhh1Mmmy5 5ZyFE/ANOYQkna94OwD3KD8cnuuD+ZedI9B6uF32CwVXJWc+QO83qE+30RQwUU6H1M6j zM/A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=OsDewrlxYZRGeL+k+SAn6C67bLABuR8TFYmsn6JjiWU=; b=FwpbRIS38vNTF6zl4Wsywmc+O7b/wSQKuN+iyqZ6hBFwJt0QAy36jw7KsNpUXdhO06 pLumQ9xkPN7Or4lFjpQaLXPnjfPwZ5BE0FbOj3eGRVQ3RljonnfF6sC8EPHnuPTNrg+X Psg2lWFQlEeK8YgvlTBG8sQwZndVayhTMWqHxW3rzajN5sQTlL3PBxnicTvgBdZ+uOPN BF014sosK4YZkRohR49WIzZ6sS2X3Wqj4YGPeJuX31v49bS5VDAhsvQYZeKKFhzRRIu3 /nirazv+azG15Fpv5QWHpqnP0rml9IjQo7R/ZhmMVXLnuQ5BHwes6Cb31M7cgBX6ARsQ LINg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABUngvfar5RQSvoSJklk06HJKH68dS2Bp+JuvG7kkHGM2/XV7QIgVT9McsmhZm4gLZGfCFqbsxjoLSGykxjxoA==
X-Received: by 10.107.2.65 with SMTP id 62mr11281678ioc.83.1477676591113; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 10:43:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH9hSJZdBJ02+Z6o=aanZ=5PN=9VwyL1ZcX2jct-6f_FFivLGA@mail.gmail.com> <0f79ddf6-c455-c41a-f269-a1bdcef05b14@ninenines.eu> <CAH9hSJb2R9gv2vNqoyTjbMV4hZTYdpX2PoAoYgWUT1UuigLHRA@mail.gmail.com> <5541be74-afcc-6aef-404e-63acb2f608eb@ninenines.eu> <CAH9hSJarsNFqX1tAL7BZmZQwUrEQs1X3wtrAPuMyz8s-k_7WRg@mail.gmail.com> <43998e7b-9227-7562-b2c6-c08134065e22@ninenines.eu> <CAD3-0rPRPzVvYb6_Z4wDZp73L5Kyb7LmE0P5j4A-2VSRwT7FMw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJb=mWdHP8xcBis8-jhWgQTfN-cgQXVV3eCyT4U8JYQHZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqnLaRvyQgXXkoNQPKcyMhv-O3RN67CMw5L_-1iQ9c6mhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJYpsPW4S9n2LaaLTYYKB7wR3Sod2=fny2CZoUR7A0bSJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP8-FqkOX1Sq6_=Sgb++QRiDWKEiOxAJ13kzMSr9heu-Ek3QmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8-FqkOX1Sq6_=Sgb++QRiDWKEiOxAJ13kzMSr9heu-Ek3QmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:43:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CAP8-FqmOHkCSFvpEnz0=oSSm_kUwuAAHJSwW=r4ZJ_k23hnWKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Cc: Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, =?UTF-8?B?TG/Dr2MgSG9ndWlu?= <essen@ninenines.eu>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11396f404eaaeb053ff064fd
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.161.182; envelope-from=costin@gmail.com; helo=mail-yw0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.175, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c0BBp-0007DW-Jy 1b7064645f18c30ad8b44d00f98ff78d
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP8-FqmOHkCSFvpEnz0=oSSm_kUwuAAHJSwW=r4ZJ_k23hnWKA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32711
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Also 24 bit fixed length ( like in http2 frame ) may be a reasonable
choice, with a 4-byte fixed header.

Costin

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:41 AM Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com> wrote:

> Current overhead is 2 bytes if frame is up to 125 bytes long - which I
> think it's not very common,
> 4 bytes for up to 64k, and 10 bytes for anything larger.
> IMHO adding one byte - i.e. making it fixed 5-byte, with first as is, and
> next 4 fixed length would
> be easiest to parse.
>
> There are obviously too many options to encode and each has benefits - my
> only concern was
> that the choice of 1, 2, 8 bytes for length may not match common sizes.
>
> ( in webpush frames will be <4k ).
>
> Costin
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:21 AM Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think WiSH could be great as a fallback to the webpush protocol push
> promises, in devices
> that don't fully support http/2, and for webpush delivery receipts.
>
>
> Great to hear that.
>
>
>
> In the context of IoT: since continuation is available, any reason to
> support 64-bit-length frames ?
> Even 32 bit ( 4G ) frames may be unpractical.  I don't know how common
> this int encoding scheme
> is - but using varint or fixed may be easier to handle.
>
>
> It's basically not to introduce any gap with WebSocket's representation
> power for compatibility while also keeping it efficient for small frames.
>
> Re: varint,
> Actually, old WebSocket protocol I-Ds used base 128 varint for encoding
> frame length for binary frames.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-00
> We can choose this as this is efficient for small messages but considered
> that WebSocket encoding is already common and honored input which led to
> the WebSocket encoding. IIRC there was some feedback from hardware
> developer against to 128 varint, but I cannot find it now.
>
> Re: big frames,
> We're also seeing that very long messages are uncommon from Chromium's UMA
> stats. We might be able to share that.
>
> Re: small over head for small frames,
> For the use cases where WiSH is layered on top of HTTP2 overhead and TLS
> record overhead, this difference might be negligible.
>
> So, ... I'm open to changing the encoding, but want to hear more :)
>
>
>