Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams
Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Wed, 01 May 2013 19:57 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 768FD21F99A4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 12:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 IDJV1omsB3mG for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 May 2013 12:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF9421F9992 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 1 May 2013 12:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UXd8X-00062s-OU for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 19:56:21 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 19:56:21 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UXd8X-00062s-OU@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 1UXd8N-0005xZ-Oo for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 19:56:11 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.219.48]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UXd8M-0005Mk-E9 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 01 May 2013 19:56:11 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id f4so1741441oah.35 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 01 May 2013 12:55:44 -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=ZNj48NoN3GmgmqYmbqr8y5gmAkgAA/xJTYiIuwJ3VTQ=; b=E64vLD1/isOT+xKmsqScAbGiRT1+6pYiE1+He7bukJcIkbBe6sJbfQmOwkG+T0AOe/ juPdiOiLl2FdPkn253c7bpl5uZ+t/f5Cy0KE5PqkD7S+0xeja07y6Qr8uPTSZ0grXqvs BRlfVUUtgQ+GFcmhvw9G4Wp/GT0dDZhyzzA574Jo42yPiyxsM4N0MHNibXlosg6+MyGo usW6n0WH79/s+RKjqCo8/d6mxnVdqHXgd9ZgdHf5TYNs/e5J1Dn/6eEfl2bB9BZdZMjt VRknqSWE1wfXVqFkjdl+wqtEhjWVm+n0CAu3OhESp4cMqJYX2FA2XC1+zVuYUA1snNld wSzw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.45.203 with SMTP id p11mr997642oem.10.1367438144528; Wed, 01 May 2013 12:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.130.139 with HTTP; Wed, 1 May 2013 12:55:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYjSjFKSdbj=QBLn0T4ufhzF1hUY=O=Qa2dfnkTzMXF0bg@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> <CABP7RbevS8M0q9OxzPncqY_gE34q5-ymdg2hOX2SQgSUNkhzsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjAbuUqz9RdO+-p3a4EsyuS=Gv0rS-U-Vh+ZCjtDjFy6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNec2LLZMjtGhSX-1q8qg66WtBoM5K0yMrs5m4VKXb5OVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgAT64jj=Am06MsA02A+eAcDrVbbgb4opO37bnMkWTPfg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbdgz=kRZPfjHK5UUfieq8uz=ToQZjFt1-+s9scj1CogmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjSjFKSdbj=QBLn0T4ufhzF1hUY=O=Qa2dfnkTzMXF0bg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 May 2013 12:55:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc5QwETi8XR2+r9FgTSxLhA2MHH3cXu0Hq9yjcRKqOS5g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c255f6db692904dbad8067"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.48; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.686, 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 1UXd8M-0005Mk-E9 064de4a7c7642e89dadb0f938c0a0ee3
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/CAP+FsNc5QwETi8XR2+r9FgTSxLhA2MHH3cXu0Hq9yjcRKqOS5g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17769
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>
I still want to be able to support the WS API over HTTP/2. It would be tragic to have N+1 connections instead of 1 when 1 works better anyway... -=R On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:46 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>wrote: > The only benefit to that is supporting non-HTTP/2 application layering > semantics, which is intended not to change from HTTP/1.X. So there's > currently no use to allow the server to initiate streams with the > client=>server direction open. > > I consider the current trend of our discussions to tend towards > eliminating complexity and targeting for HTTP/2 application layering > semantics. I think if we have another use case come up that would require > supporting server initiated bidirectional streams, I think at that point > it'd be worthwhile to revisit how we do this. > > I'd like to hear from others if they disagree with my assessment of how > most people feel so far. FWIW, I personally would like us to support server > initiated bidirectional streams. > > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:26 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Why not just bring the UNIDIRECTIONAL flag back as a PUSH_PROMISE >> frame-specific flag? If a PUSH_PROMISE frame has the unidirectional >> flag set, the stream is automatically half-closed in the return >> direction. If the flag is unset, the promised stream remains half-open >> until the client half-closes or a rst_stream is sent. >> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:44 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) >> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> > Remember we originally *had* a flag for UNIDIRECTIONAL, which we removed >> > because it was redundant in the traditional HTTP use cases. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:39 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> At worst, we burn a flag which states it is half-closed or >> unidirectional, >> >> or provide some other information which identifies the IANA port >> number for >> >> the overlayed protocol or something. >> >> Anyway, *shrug*. >> >> -=R >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 2:32 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) >> >> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:17 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 on this. I like this approach. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Apr 29, 2013 2:15 PM, "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 don't feel too strongly here. I do feel like this is more of an edge >> >>> case, possibly important for forward proxies (or reverse proxies >> speaking to >> >>> backends over a multiplexed channel like HTTP/2). It doesn't really >> matter >> >>> for my browser, so unless servers chime in and say they'd prefer a >> limit, >> >>> I'm fine with this. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> As for PUSH'd streams, the easiest solution is likely to assume that >> >>>>> the stream starts out in a half-closed state. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> I looked into our earlier email threads and indeed this is what we >> agreed >> >>> on ( >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013JanMar/1106.html). >> >>> I voiced some mild objection since if you view the HTTP/2 framing >> layer as a >> >>> transport for another application protocol, then bidirectional server >> >>> initiated streams might be nice. But in absence of any such protocol, >> this >> >>> is a nice simplification. >> >>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> -=R >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 12:33 PM, William Chan (陈智昌) >> >>>>> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 3:46 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> >> >>>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> On Apr 29, 2013 11:36 AM, "William Chan (陈智昌)" >> >>>>>>> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> [snip] >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > Oops, forgot about that. See, the issue with that is now we've >> made >> >>>>>>> > PUSH_PROMISE as potentially expensive as a HEADERS frame, since >> it does more >> >>>>>>> > than just simple stream id allocation. I guess it's not really >> a huge issue, >> >>>>>>> > since if it's used correctly (in the matter you described), >> then it >> >>>>>>> > shouldn't be too expensive. If clients attempt to abuse it, >> then servers >> >>>>>>> > should probably treat it in a similar manner as they treat >> people trying to >> >>>>>>> > abuse header compression in all other frames with the header >> block, and kill >> >>>>>>> > the connection accordingly. >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Not just "potentially" as expensive.. As soon as we get a push >> >>>>>>> promise we need to allocate state and hold onto it for an >> indefinite period >> >>>>>>> of time. We do not yet know exactly when that compression context >> can be let >> >>>>>>> go because it has not yet been bound to stream state. Do push >> streams all >> >>>>>>> share the same compression state? Do those share the same >> compression state >> >>>>>>> as the originating stream? The answers might be obvious but they >> haven't yet >> >>>>>>> been written down. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> I guess I don't see per-stream state as being that expensive. >> >>>>>> Compression contexts are a fixed state on a per-connection basis, >> meaning >> >>>>>> that additional streams don't add to that state. The main cost, as >> I see it, >> >>>>>> is the decompressed headers. I said potentially since that >> basically only >> >>>>>> means the URL (unless there are other headers important for >> caching due to >> >>>>>> Vary), and additional headers can come in the HEADERS frame. Also, >> >>>>>> PUSH_PROMISE doesn't require allocating other state, like >> backend/DB >> >>>>>> connections, if you only want to be able to handle >> (#MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMs) >> >>>>>> of those backend connections in parallel. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If they're not specified, then we should specify it, but I've >> always >> >>>>>> understood the header compression contexts to be directional and >> apply to >> >>>>>> all frames sending headers in a direction. Therefore there should >> be two >> >>>>>> compression contexts in a connection, one for header blocks being >> sent and >> >>>>>> one for header blocks being received. If this is controversial, >> let's fork a >> >>>>>> thread and discuss it. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> > As far as the potential problem above, the root problem is >> that >> >>>>>>> >> > when you >> >>>>>>> >> > have limits you can have hangs. We see this all the time >> today >> >>>>>>> >> > with browsers >> >>>>>>> >> > (it's only reason people do domain sharding so they can >> bypass >> >>>>>>> >> > limits). I'm >> >>>>>>> >> > not sure I see the value of introducing the new proposed >> limits. >> >>>>>>> >> > They don't >> >>>>>>> >> > solve the hangs, and I don't think the granularity addresses >> any >> >>>>>>> >> > of the >> >>>>>>> >> > costs in a finer grained manner. I'd like to hear >> clarification >> >>>>>>> >> > on what >> >>>>>>> >> > costs the new proposed limits will address. >> >>>>>>> >> >> >>>>>>> >> I don't believe that the proposal improves the situation enough >> >>>>>>> >> (or at >> >>>>>>> >> all) to justify the additional complexity. That's something >> that >> >>>>>>> >> you >> >>>>>>> >> need to assess for yourself. This proposal provides more >> granular >> >>>>>>> >> control, but it doesn't address the core problem, which is that >> >>>>>>> >> you >> >>>>>>> >> and I can only observe each other actions after some delay, >> which >> >>>>>>> >> means that we can't coordinate those actions perfectly. Nor >> can >> >>>>>>> >> be >> >>>>>>> >> build a perfect model of the other upon which to observe and >> act >> >>>>>>> >> upon. >> >>>>>>> >> The usual protocol issue. >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> > OK then. My proposal is to add a new limit for PUSH_PROMISE >> frames >> >>>>>>> > though, separately from the MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS limit, since >> PUSH_PROMISE >> >>>>>>> > exists as a promise to create a stream, explicitly so we don't >> have to count >> >>>>>>> > it toward the existing MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS limit (I searched >> the spec and >> >>>>>>> > this seems to be inadequately specced). Roberto and I discussed >> that before >> >>>>>>> > and may have written an email somewhere in spdy-dev@, but I >> don't think >> >>>>>>> > we've ever raised it here. >> >>>>>>> > >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Well, there is an issue tracking it in the github repo now, at >> >>>>>>> least. As currently defined in the spec, it definitely needs to >> be >> >>>>>>> addressed. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Great. You guys are way better than I am about tracking all known >> >>>>>> issues. I just have it mapped fuzzily in my head :) >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >
- Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Un… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Poul-Henning Kamp
- RE: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… RUELLAN Herve
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Roberto Peon
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… James M Snell
- Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit an… Martin Thomson