Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 29 April 2013 22:50 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 74D9A21F9B59 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:50:52 -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 ItgR5kP66iil for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:50:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E982321F9B64 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:50:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWwtv-0006df-5X for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:50:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWwtv-0006df-5X@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UWwtl-0006b0-1Q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:50:17 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com ([209.85.212.180]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UWwtj-0000i3-TZ for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 22:50:17 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id h11so3344004wiv.13 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ieUhV0miyxNVDo1E0HGF8iRQU/Qry+e/shKs9O5/kr8=; b=hvEnIzj43lojfwNccQ1wm+G7HUd7JsPpod175TlDwNg/eJtn8vg+2vzMJv3WkOgrDK t3TIFm6Tj82UnAsUkPnq/HN+4RZ/jtoApOWJwrur1Jo/xAfIi0MewZNQjJS7CPzk+aVA j+aDFmKeqnAExILhKCr1ovgxFEx0sUk0BJK+JTjS3uSHu/EgiZYFyLNUOupsY+K8/dX5 mEcbj9oNWm+JJqNNbES1nmgIF5RjmIJwCgoj18qq1JE0lJLcGRhom06HDTqBSUD97Whk RXtJTNAatM/NqhBGG7fJOn1Alz1IhAXSY4AVtrxP5HirirmsO1rXOWj8k9xYXH28bG3M 2/FA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.109.227 with SMTP id hv3mr35392039wjb.32.1367275789696; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.33.102 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:49:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNezQzxdZEJY_2_0h_TR2pBbVsGyGBhQhKcm-65pt6S8rQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbdBe-Xkx+CMvpN=_oNAqm6SyLyL+XNHRUKSqn8mjSDw1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgCiyWerT0tUUVKcbNPqdTGuXHd_MG59DjcUsEWst5t7g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVdU=cZ53Bqg5Un=E80NMpcgYO37DVmwUFW0O-i7SNf8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhz64FsEGgGhx91RfWwuPPxWdAkesOV-bmqWVWE7ZxdjA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcKQkn1o4WZscwNmSmm6YzqE_TKxPr4jnozNdaVqpZ7=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhF6rAZoYEaz4aJO6xawaJxzxGt=Bkg4H9eBOP-LBSRmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNezQzxdZEJY_2_0h_TR2pBbVsGyGBhQhKcm-65pt6S8rQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:49:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWDQsxWnq2QwnTWK4s1bCzEFJycptuho8d80EJLgVrPOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, 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=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.747, BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: lisa.w3.org 1UWwtj-0000i3-TZ fe012473cc577a2450d62cf76dcbb141
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnWDQsxWnq2QwnTWK4s1bCzEFJycptuho8d80EJLgVrPOg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17692
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 29 April 2013 14:15, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>; wrote:
> I had thought to provide no explicit limit for PUSH_PROMISE, just as there
> is no limit to the size of a webpage, or the number of links upon it.
> The memory requirements for PUSH are similar or the same (push should
> consume a single additional bit of overhead per url, when one considers that
> the URL should be parsed, enqueued, etc.).
> If the browser isn't done efficiently, or, the server is for some unknown
> reason being stupid and attempting to DoS the browser with many resources
> that it will never use, then the client sends RST_STREAM for the ones it
> doesn't want, and makes a request on its own. all tidy.

I think that this is where I was going with my thinking.

> As for PUSH'd streams, the easiest solution is likely to assume that the
> stream starts out in a half-closed state.

That works for

I think that conceptually a third state makes the most sense, but that
would be roughly equivalent to half-closed.