Re: Making extensibility cheap
James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Wed, 04 June 2014 00:38 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 638A51A0350 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NOjPIlpuxKR3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3317B1A00C9 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:37:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1WrzAZ-0006im-N4 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:35:07 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:35:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1WrzAZ-0006im-N4@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1WrzAK-0005RN-GN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:34:52 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1WrzAJ-0004up-DT for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 00:34:52 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id k48so7737095wev.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:34:24 -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=CFp18JwxvLClr9oRHs0qHmdY+R5LEHIXOI8Dt2elfD4=; b=JGaxXrady2rqD4r9J7U0H1BB4qY1dm0xJC1A8zmHD9vEPtz/n0NCD0e0x2LNHqvKfQ gi0DVwUQv3uxHBOcIy8WkLEPEReHf134DPsa4qcKptmgLz+W9E8sS7VQfmqLJJOpaXoy JA1IvfOUrIBKAhvw/b/MRACdY5ZJnKzB1AO1m4bjQwaAPItG+nN+cQQuRQ3LXNAaf7GF 4s+EHBg+srC5JkXO3r56mHQyNRuSA4dr5SRPS4q+ERzHpOggonYuDGdaPZSSHXtCGxQ8 I/bF/pG0ZuZ1MIeo2SkSAqDN8JLhv+Zk61IA7lICSVckqAjXjKqSnFN5XLG+yaFhNVsc Fsig==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.81.134 with SMTP id a6mr48380wiy.19.1401842064621; Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.223.68 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.223.68 with HTTP; Tue, 3 Jun 2014 17:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnU1zUg0G-bfvzO1vTtVH22evSn1Kw-AQnwvWQqtmnesQA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnU1zUg0G-bfvzO1vTtVH22evSn1Kw-AQnwvWQqtmnesQA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 17:34:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfETyGdT8hQK=Tf1D5Lak4QgOzKT8jNnSarhovJ9hA43w@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d04428cba4b0a2d04faf7ca43"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.172; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.723, 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: maggie.w3.org 1WrzAJ-0004up-DT cc63007a04753fddcd7354da72f9a856
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Making extensibility cheap
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbfETyGdT8hQK=Tf1D5Lak4QgOzKT8jNnSarhovJ9hA43w@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/24076
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>
+1. Happy to see this finally being properly addressed. On Jun 3, 2014 5:04 PM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > I've been somewhat convinced by Mike Bishop's arguments for restoring > extensibility[1]. > > What I find hard to swallow is the associated cost. I think that > Mike's proposal could be trimmed further. So I'm going to take up the > challenge. > > Here's what I think we absolutely need: > > 1. A way to negotiate the use of hop-by-hop extensions. > 2. A way to carry end-to-end extensions. > 3. Extensibility for settings, frames and error codes. > > To that end, here's my proposed reduction, which I think is largely > keeping with the spirit of Mike's draft: > > Extensibility > > As Mike suggests, we can open a few IANA registries for business. > That's text we can restore from old drafts. Easy. > > I agree that we need more space for settings than 8 bits, but I'm > going to be aggressive and suggest that 16 bits is enough. We can > reserve some portion of that space for mucking around (a quarter is > what I'd suggest, but I don't care). > > End-to-end > > Here I'm going to suggest something far more limited than what Mike > does. I think that we can get away with an end-to-end, flow > controlled, ordered frame. A new frame type, modelled on Mike's > should work here. The new frame type would include a 32-bit extension > ID, for which we can open a registry; we could piggyback on the PEN > registry (private enterprise number); or, we could recommend random > selection. Again, I care not about these details and will go with > what people seem to like most. > > We could do something more with optional flow control, optional > end-to-end and optional ordering, but I think that is altogether too > much optionality. > > I'm aware that forcing flow control here might be controversial, but I > think that if we require intermediaries to forward this - and I think > we have to - this is the only good option. > > Negotiation > > I think that this doesn't need a new "EXTENSIONS" frame, I think that > we can use settings. Each peer can set a setting to indicate that > they support feature X and if both support the feature, then the > state-affecting components of that feature can be activated. > > Otherwise, all error codes map to INTERNAL_ERROR (or some new error > code we define that has equivalent semantics, i.e., none); all unknown > frame types are dropped; and all settings are ignored. > > Note that this is important. Unless you negotiate, only the special > "EXTENSION" frame will traverse intermediaries. > > Advice Column > > Mike's draft offers good guidance for extension designers. I think we > need to crib some of that text. Suggesting that an extension deal > with translating to and from HTTP/1.1, or dealing with peers that > don't support the extension is motherhood and apple pie. More > important though is establishing the parameters for extension. Much > of the above will need to reside in this section. > > I am going to try to turn out some proposed text for this on the plane > tomorrow, in case this is what we decide to pursue. > > --Martin > > [1] in draft-bishop-http2-extension-frames > >
- Making extensibility cheap Martin Thomson
- Re: Making extensibility cheap James M Snell
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Daniel Sommermann
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Matthew Kerwin
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Mike Bishop
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Mike Bishop
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Greg Wilkins
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Amos Jeffries
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Amos Jeffries
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Daniel Sommermann
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Martin Thomson
- Re: Making extensibility cheap Greg Wilkins