Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams
Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Thu, 28 February 2013 04:40 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 41E4F21F8A8A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:40:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.418
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.418 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lejJASblHtI7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AB721F89C7 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:40:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UAvGT-0001yH-5Z for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:38:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:38:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UAvGT-0001yH-5Z@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UAvGC-0001uL-IG for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:38:24 +0000
Received: from mail-bk0-f52.google.com ([209.85.214.52]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UAvGB-0006ta-80 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 28 Feb 2013 04:38:24 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f52.google.com with SMTP id jk13so611867bkc.39 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:37:56 -0800 (PST)
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=V4w4dDyAzWTe3hMf5LJRAeIU+v4jzyAv1QEv7O+RRUE=; b=cvPAuK2o1c1LFIPjOnKJivRU8zT7M15HBbngLB0BfF1wuXmAjGaF8E1m9XBH6gj6a/ rEPv3k16mr4ZfdxP+I7QwCKWtm6XoALQAU9YcJe8/ikVB8yQSVdV76YtdwnVTZyz2+gK Ioa69DDJ7/mDU4Wkg3Pf8hLPNuntuW3/z2naJgbjRbMvcscjFic4nEZvlFCj7TaSCUxr LL0UF4NfsLNA5I1IgNz/6BMiAP4F/r1Pyla4nwbxxarY9OGai7KvQGhEK7Wn/md5pt62 mISfp4zHScgRY6WJVy2YQPIpJP15WEbifdpA95wvgav5DlvZSTDeMTgyeMOnAfU/JY8d yvGg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.204.156.83 with SMTP id v19mr1710102bkw.136.1362026276409; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:37:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.205.8.7 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:37:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <512ECBED.5000509@treenet.co.nz>
References: <B33F11E188FEAB49A7FAF38BAB08A2C001D31EF6@TK5EX14MBXW601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <CAP+FsNcqu-AwNnijWcPyNZFWssEqo0b+sv61E09ZO=aFyzCNFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AA6440@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <CAA4WUYiJbASP2fUGSZYzLstDM1zn6FLou9OOdRwokwm0yu+OMg@mail.gmail.com> <5128A209.7040403@treenet.co.nz> <CAA4WUYjUTkJk1EdJ_N6w_8VPCu7cSZ8aTceO7r=ojX8b5bmuXA@mail.gmail.com> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <CAA4WUYgo=GD1_9OV5vtpE+rRbXVJShHU_L861QxPAq1yc15cMw@mail.gmail.com> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AB76D9@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <CAA4WUYhLCmJ_2qZNUYO7W1n9tHVY18w6K=KuO1k3tDjGg62Piw@mail.gmail.com> <CA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163ABFA8C@TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <CAA4WUYgOY3TMyu525mbK4YvsS+ZW7J4rUHU_4QZdPu9K5VUhXg@mail.gmail.com> <512ECBED.5000509@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:37:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfYyZpPwBRmStcSGvYvw8E3zG0OdBdusdexJNnMAdwqmw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0015175cb55e61949304d6c174c3"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.52; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f52.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.592, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UAvGB-0006ta-80 a4f4347bc47f952f242b0f9612094309
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNfYyZpPwBRmStcSGvYvw8E3zG0OdBdusdexJNnMAdwqmw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16922
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>
That seems like it might be backwards? The *average* number of requests for a page is ~70 in 2011 and close to 90 today. This isn't just about a few instances of demanding pages with many resources. Those pages probably use in excess of 100 (and Patrick would like to see a larger default than that, something which the trends support...). The cheap chip can handle the case where the clients makes too many requests by rejecting all but one stream, and causing the browser to retry. In such cases, latency must not matter, else the device would have enough memory to handle more than one request at once. In any case, given that mostly we access these minimal devices on the LAN, latency will be minimal anyway regardless of what happens in the first exchange. The sweet spot here for defaults is such that it allows for a latency decrease on high RTT links as compared to HTTP/1, and such that we we don't mask malicious behavior. If you set the default too low you end up providing a latency bias to larger sites, which seems unfair to me, and also undermines reasons for adoption. -=R
- #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported ma… Osama Mazahir
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Roberto Peon
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Martin Thomson
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Roberto Peon
- RE: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… William Chan (陈智昌)
- RE: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… William Chan (陈智昌)
- RE: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… William Chan (陈智昌)
- RE: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Gabriel Montenegro
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Amos Jeffries
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… Roberto Peon
- RE: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… DRUTA, DAN
- Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supporte… William Chan (陈智昌)