Re: SYN_REPLY

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 27 February 2013 19:18 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 7D8BB21F8A11 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:18:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.292, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 lcAgeLCT3dXu for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5F121F887F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:18:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UAmWL-0005ld-22 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:18:29 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:18:29 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UAmWL-0005ld-22@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UAmWB-0005ft-Ft for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:18:19 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UAmWA-0004TQ-JI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:18:19 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id es5so785733wgb.5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:17:52 -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=YWjdqD7YmnOdHQro2S7dWNEPSRcTKdJp/qOLl6OykJs=; b=MAOqTnTOa0RRFcGjJFCsnRg6zajWYURvWPYKUQeW6x0wG3/1Cx+RYYNTVtb3CKM7ZV P6oPXgQ1spGWwHf7jynx99G4PH4QESKx9y9XEZph8tYadMB5F1YJjp+FlmHk+ga/uGeV /ikWmVNFfbBCJHg2zLK3sSZ1KteZpW/dS+N3vNhNhj4oDipZ0/HircN9bQXu/gHoxzoB 9d5WMO5J2wJiduFATRrIIIiHPxRnTHMHCqMNhov8QzAen6ZJWqVWAsAHNI9r3eKfQhRa jep5ZOqcmztw0M6SD9fxzGc4j+S8hyEjqvjUdLHHC3AC0eHIe1jBlt2eDCuUEeQWbEkj iAhQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.75.177 with SMTP id d17mr6092003wiw.16.1361992672171; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.5.135 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:17:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNdeey2UK1KF-Ejy2SX_aznJi07q+=uPvYuT58wVEjmSNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnU5he8x=v+UvV8Oe7mS-3FnMtLmjaz_xk+Ns84LzCpvwQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdkoFXwWoxGAVGh1Sy6+3EDrzOo-hgP6=9+0PnYaxzXbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdYVkjBVRnJAdsHcjHJg_dw3f7T81Br=ioDNcXUG3V0=w@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUc4C2wTKX9naV9Ver7H9gTnqP84n_8+3QKDRXFyP04jA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNffguLnO--8SoGo2ceYTJpWut+6PuGN=p4rL84d6TvBrw@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUcOFY=FtESWyhmayUvFvz===w=_KndNjM_diLkcSOQSw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd_3eqoOgOgeXe629dYSaiEosh1m5AOaO_MyKGK=BQmpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcRYa55pe-xAwooZYTPjkcN7h3MgCr1Gy7gWYf6EQSydA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYj7SJ+QtzANL+hwEfVmO3jZvPgQjTbxs4es0ecnVG3-fg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNefW3K=H6-Ax9ip4R=VTrTECQ+943BPUBQJ=cV2jo_UMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYiWy1UGUcUVvQMN_W5pTxXEmBSUCFxAaRmzH1U0tBK71A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWSqRYAPz3mb1gS3_+O60okZK5NTnzHQC2-NBizsYZgbg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh13LOL-NRgeyR3EFf+5p1czs8SEUrMdReOr3=1v8Vb1g@mail.gmail.com> <512D7F92.6030501@treenet.co.nz> <CAA4WUYjmC2Wg3r7CiqSTJXoW6y_CYyRQB4u9dLzkQ4aCWnnL5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfA7+iun5pE_vTqN-ciaJ7kfj_PStdc6HJ1f-yGUR=kUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYiaZ6ftTePFiMkJ5y4rBd2eXjnrzk1c24-VYqAEe0ystw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdntyXmD71R76kXZFu0E--tv5zT2f5djL4YC6sRq6HdMQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWjYgxbcnEo5SiU_0dN8uSt6SNpjzY0BVvooeHo18T7ng@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfp=wtRVR0dQVe_YcPp0yzQU545THv5byObRdsyOUwPSg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXzrmHKZjCvsCSB7FnPA_CLqEfO02iMjj2BDHuEDpt2Bg@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdeey2UK1KF-Ejy2SX_aznJi07q+=uPvYuT58wVEjmSNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 11:17:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW7n+c17mOVKNya5jVxW5A=8HPb_Ez=_JDQB8eWiNfdsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.50; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.677, 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: maggie.w3.org 1UAmWA-0004TQ-JI 4c21e9d6e0c5208683f603bf11669a60
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SYN_REPLY
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnW7n+c17mOVKNya5jVxW5A=8HPb_Ez=_JDQB8eWiNfdsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16895
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>

If you like.  This hasn't addressed the unidirectional piece though.

On 27 February 2013 11:16, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shall I take that as an agreement? :)
> -=R
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Opcode or flags, it matters not.  It depends on where you want to
>> spend your bit (or part thereof).
>>
>> On 27 February 2013 10:45, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The we're wasting bytes on responses. Bleh. Worse, now we can't simply
>> > examine the length field to figure out what to do. Double-eww.
>> > In any case, spending a bit in the flags, is far more costly than
>> > spending
>> > the fractional bit out of the opcode space, which is what is done today!
>> >
>> > Something I could go with, given the previous change would be to also
>> > change
>> > the name of SYN_STREAM to HEADERS_WITH_PRIO
>> > and leave HEADERS as it is.
>> >
>> > How does that sound?
>> >
>> >
>> > -=R
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Martin Thomson
>> > <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 26 February 2013 20:16, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Taking the priority out of SYN_STREAM would only bloat things on the
>> >> > wire,
>> >> > since the client will always want to state priority for a new stream.
>> >> > I
>> >> > don't support removing priority from SYN_STREAM.
>> >>
>> >> What if HEADERS contained priority?  Is your objection to removing
>> >> priority from SYN_STREAM, or removing priority from the first frame in
>> >> the stream.
>> >>
>> >> Here's a more concrete proposal, albeit slightly radical.
>> >>
>> >> Remove SYN_STREAM and SYN_REPLY.
>> >> Have stream-level flags that appear in ALL messages.
>> >>  1. last frame in stream (the existing FIN bit)
>> >>  2. stream priority (a new one)
>> >> The 'stream priority' flag indicates that the first 4 bytes of the
>> >> frame payload includes a priority.  This should (or SHOULD) be set on
>> >> the first frame of any stream.
>> >>
>> >> Then a typical stream looks like:
>> >>  - a HEADERS frame with the 'stream priority' flag set, plus a priority
>> >>  - a bunch of data frames
>> >>  - maybe some other frames
>> >
>> >
>
>