IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Questions on Frame Size

William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> Fri, 21 June 2013 03:05 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 DA90421E80DF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.666, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 t1sdadqu2Rc1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA37121E80B0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Uprc6-0002hm-JN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:02:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:02:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Uprc6-0002hm-JN@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1Uprbt-0002gl-Aq for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:02:01 +0000
Received: from mail-pa0-f43.google.com ([209.85.220.43]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1Uprbs-0005uI-D4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 21 Jun 2013 03:02:01 +0000
Received: by mail-pa0-f43.google.com with SMTP id hz11so7140410pad.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VjcHHbdlNVLAjnieFBIUl2CRNY+EOZzogTQdRtN/VlU=; b=RkGq3UCLi3otHukBeJ7E2tHV4YWFPId0RcqEu/tnLUpE2EPLCljpE/AFCjDOoKPjab 2IsGSJ8AB3Q1+/uJ/imwUf9mgifOpAzWUVAqgMhgh9hfUFD14Q5o8OBwr0nQd9YxQN5/ Wiyfo4dN/3Bu3Luxn5KaFqDzxl+UTR/YMhSVnzFZn45tiGNDMcyDSPH+lADGkHIi54uP tFx3eBeSbivLEfJJliuLnpcgd2eQexDhRZ1lO8++QVitrX3RWuIf8ELy6I1g0gcemzUV SuVxWS42jQs4/m+KL8u4KoAsnoXjCufNAKGVJs6nzYqRlqtu/EALXqL1w1W9wu7dUxd4 4Lnw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=VjcHHbdlNVLAjnieFBIUl2CRNY+EOZzogTQdRtN/VlU=; b=R+XK9HV+RPBp5k5TY1Thd+NnTpDGF51gJ+VcCx0G3kY8N4WSHmKJ9zZ2IQnrcZ/RYX BQQN/ga/clqyrXsuXMrdRM9GPQEc1klDoy49vE5fWX7+KHD1h/TknHa2HHKXIiQYm6FU Op5j6PJeGk6NaEQCIBrStHVBF06+cgrVfwBi8=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=VjcHHbdlNVLAjnieFBIUl2CRNY+EOZzogTQdRtN/VlU=; b=YymD2oHgQ/a0lGldpssLbNoXB+pxobDBLT8SgWRKpnkYlfcY9SqExv5Kmsbc67+bH9 nbb0XancCedWhAoPgjHTMaFOzQ7IE1jciysAgf7xUf6fFx1OnCzLd7WGa8d1qRoZX8d8 mEfnbK++CNMl7LxnjUsoWwukH5HDRY26hOFlGypeRvoVTYK6X1UuFpJGF52a0jYBjEXi ogZagPIXulIhWhqfqj8//1PIt7QaaKzqTDiB/JSEW1wlBhffjhdjtddcL535ThaHtFtm VFFc87iEcnU6eCCIF/Sq7peptiU1/utDDHiFg+BRh1Dq3Bp9tx+AQeaAtymT6Bc98Wq8 mFGw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.26.142 with SMTP id l14mr13922202pag.197.1371783693835; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: willchan@google.com
Received: by 10.68.21.135 with HTTP; Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:01:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbdHwpxm2MUnWGoD3M6SN6p7m6maeJEQRRay9YL_J64FBw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <51C293FD.1040806@iij.ad.jp> <CABP7RbeS7zeVnOM7R0mcUe+t-M+Ta3GVZr+1A3gSjY8QqCOgzQ@mail.gmail.com> <51C3823E.7010706@iij.ad.jp> <51C3A2A4.6030601@treenet.co.nz> <alpine.LRH.2.01.1306201809370.21683@egate.xpasc.com> <51C3BD06.6020501@iij.ad.jp> <CABP7RbdHwpxm2MUnWGoD3M6SN6p7m6maeJEQRRay9YL_J64FBw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2013 20:01:33 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: yZHDs-ZzCgRGHw7WLs8zAz7OOSM
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYgLZVDvbyaXSLCURpiN2Qyj8kY627oB=zmskEitq7Uqog@mail.gmail.com>
From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Shigeki Ohtsu <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec52993b7c7c73d04dfa14731"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnWwAoMf0um/sqZ2Uc9U7RR1j7grkHweUh1CflPy2juTjAUYrGYpYCsfCXMeLRLu+AyKTfZEJUZWjx7LPEniPBBmZ0xJDkaSCqGmObIhZDaQpWGAa1rC+q+75wAxmkiNBOlpTu3J7UHqyFPUqwIxpjdjHmoygbnUEk++COjZ85DKznX7/WN901A2QHOtlF0GCwbclPc
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.220.43; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-pa0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.076, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.297, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Uprbs-0005uI-D4 06ff6cd815e8a3eed5db590f8457f089
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Questions on Frame Size
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYgLZVDvbyaXSLCURpiN2Qyj8kY627oB=zmskEitq7Uqog@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18335
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>

While I agree with your conclusion, I disagree with your explanation. I
think it's inappropriate to explain something as we hashed it out in the
f2f, sorry you weren't there to argue it.

This is also why I nitpick on commit messages that explain something as
"decided at f2f" without an explanation of the rationale.


On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 7:55 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> -1... At the face to face we hashed this out.  For the time being,  for
> the current implementation draft, 16/64 is good enough.
> On Jun 20, 2013 7:43 PM, "Shigeki Ohtsu" <ohtsu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:
>
>> It seems that everyone agreed max 16K in HTTP but is not sure for use of
>> 64K now.
>>
>> I think it is a bad idea to require for all implementers to suport 64K
>> frame size because
>> it is too early to discuss future extensions for non-HTTP protocols.
>>
>> I've just made two commits for
>>
>> 1. change the requirement of min size of frame to 8K as previous one
>> (maybe 16K is okay)
>> 2. write max frame size of 16K explicity when carrying HTTP
>>
>> https://github.com/shigeki/**http2-spec/compare/shigeki_**20130621<https://github.com/shigeki/http2-spec/compare/shigeki_20130621>
>>
>> If this is accepted, I will submit the PR.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> (2013/06/21 10:14), David Morris wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>>
>>>  Which implies that server-push is a different protocol to HTTP already.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Different from 1.1, but a new feature of 2.0
>>>
>>>
>>>  IIRC: the 64K limit is for next-generation requirements of systems
>>>> running
>>>> HTTP at TB speeds. Allowing new frames to be added for those larger
>>>> line rates
>>>> is very useful given they are already on the horizon and HTTP/2.0 has
>>>> long
>>>> lifetime ahead.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the SF Interim, we agreed to 64K/16K (frame/vs HTTP) to allow for the
>>> larger frame required to establish a TLS connection without added round
>>> trips because the initial TLS setup exceeded a single frame.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email