Re: MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 and PUSH_PROMISE

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 23 July 2013 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@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 063C811E818D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tq6UPdlUjUta for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:45:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE4B911E817C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:45:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V1mFp-00035n-AS for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:44:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:44:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V1mFp-00035n-AS@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1V1mFd-0002z9-VF for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:44:17 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1V1mFd-0005TG-93 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 23:44:17 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id c10so3645522wiw.13 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:43:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=1XDjWYTiT9/ET3SePP1J3XMq0mX/eCI6FCwn9jUK4Pg=; b=Mn7MtkxleYaU0pxCMiB0DQH9BWOr9XOnCpkdHhalXnZ7E/GLIzsCSWjchAi+d0Pa99 xORg5Y8tcFgEw5HaaGE1QYM2D60Aq/Akgs3FBJdJTb6E8hTQ5wElz4ktuzPB9fvO8ewr i0OiAMFgAEUE2nXTlxp+de+5dWEvSr12IrWvFMPSEzKXmnGVwYCGVkJCeOoAdUI9I85L rUCJhdGmNR7jltgLqVabf3KCyAxZ2UGHCxlDFBvoyP4DzpkAfX4zTFm9541dxU821CWl h9DIKVl2U73PVMo3BWfV5vgiNFZRQSsWC6JgkngMj6zI022wfm7rSYDVjATSML3fZc6/ syWw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.1 with SMTP id ci1mr712934wib.14.1374623030967; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.60.46 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:43:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNfgEqP2dwHsG0RD2ZizpVNw=98mTJ=1Q33b3UK8NdhjYA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+KJw_5PcUxBiUnQ00=G2C4Q6MnaB=hpNDk+9eTeZMs3Lz-CpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNf7YBDfO_=fW7nPHXdUi0F+0+4S2AUm_T2gHtqYhER8MA@mail.gmail.com> <20130723190419.GA25817@LK-Perkele-VII> <CAP+FsNc5tef8WRCaH-_6z5se=vVPscSQ3+GfEF0T02q8oKq6WA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWx5d_3U+tFQYG68+NCGC3Q2Hfm_PD0hgALeawb+PY-ZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfauVPhGZH31_LFeQKOuPF0KcYKp7U4qMBtDUsv-Ja-cQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnV7ZZ_MWeuP2cDKombNWJJahES02XYTJh0OJY7yo17ytQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfgEqP2dwHsG0RD2ZizpVNw=98mTJ=1Q33b3UK8NdhjYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 16:43:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUK45jVj1f=QuJnE7w3gSWJZ_jAPq=87SLyvyGYxUt0kw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.180; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f180.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.691, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V1mFd-0005TG-93 9d366a87a01b4fac19fb58a1e75cc9ba
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 and PUSH_PROMISE
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnUK45jVj1f=QuJnE7w3gSWJZ_jAPq=87SLyvyGYxUt0kw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18898
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>

On 23 July 2013 15:38, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a proxy guy, actually.

Everyone writing a stack deals with these problems at some level.
Some will just have to worry about concurrency and queuing at a
different layer, that's all :)

After some offline discussion, I understand that we still (perhaps
grudgingly) need a way to signal that a client is unwilling to receive
pushes.  However, that operates at two levels:
a) a client is unwilling to receive pushes, ever
b) a client is currently unwilling to receive pushes, but will accept
promises (i.e., the requests) in the expectation that it can receive
the corresponding responses in time

The concern here is that setting the maximum concurrent streams to
zero could be used to communicate either situation, and that sometimes
the distinction is important.

I think that onus is on Roberto to more effectively motivate the need
for this distinction.

If indeed we agree that the two cases are distinct, then we probably
need to consider ways to communicate this distinction effectively.  A
separate setting that expressly disables push promise or limits the
number of promises might work.