Re: MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 and PUSH_PROMISE

Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 20:33 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 AB76E21E808F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 3Db3ejCjuMK6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C6121F94DC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V3u4B-0007Ow-Nq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:29:15 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:29:15 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V3u4B-0007Ow-Nq@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <leif@ogre.com>) id 1V3u41-0007O6-VN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:29:06 +0000
Received: from kramer.ogre.com ([71.6.165.248]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <leif@ogre.com>) id 1V3u3u-0005GX-Fn for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 20:29:05 +0000
Received: from dhcp-40fa.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-40fa.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.64.250]) (authenticated bits=0) by kramer.ogre.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r6TKS89v010614 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:28:09 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ogre.com; s=03062012; t=1375129691; bh=MBKBbl68pAy0SR0i6/l8mY7Mmjs8JVvRNBZbCl0ROpc=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=S27J9cBWnc5/upcB7tE1Yf8FspE8m+uwyv9Ke68wyYXnDe7IF1aQ0cVjJdxgf8L4k hl/R82a7LDxt2KN8w9t6RMoG/N2u6d89564Vy6WFHvL9FwFXPLc8Hilj2qENGHqP1T tNE2UZ29yXa/2T1KMbq5jZpd4v59W8Gwqk0+Bc0o=
Message-ID: <51F6D058.4010508@ogre.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 22:28:08 +0200
From: Leif Hedstrom <leif@ogre.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>, Gábor Molnár <gabor.molnar@sch.bme.hu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
References: <CA+KJw_5PcUxBiUnQ00=G2C4Q6MnaB=hpNDk+9eTeZMs3Lz-CpA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNf7YBDfO_=fW7nPHXdUi0F+0+4S2AUm_T2gHtqYhER8MA@mail.gmail.com> <20130723190419.GA25817@LK-Perkele-VII> <CAP+FsNc5tef8WRCaH-_6z5se=vVPscSQ3+GfEF0T02q8oKq6WA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWx5d_3U+tFQYG68+NCGC3Q2Hfm_PD0hgALeawb+PY-ZA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfauVPhGZH31_LFeQKOuPF0KcYKp7U4qMBtDUsv-Ja-cQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnV7ZZ_MWeuP2cDKombNWJJahES02XYTJh0OJY7yo17ytQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfgEqP2dwHsG0RD2ZizpVNw=98mTJ=1Q33b3UK8NdhjYA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUK45jVj1f=QuJnE7w3gSWJZ_jAPq=87SLyvyGYxUt0kw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUK45jVj1f=QuJnE7w3gSWJZ_jAPq=87SLyvyGYxUt0kw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=71.6.165.248; envelope-from=leif@ogre.com; helo=kramer.ogre.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.528, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V3u3u-0005GX-Fn 450f83124ea842a49eb5a83bebd7eb3b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 and PUSH_PROMISE
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F6D058.4010508@ogre.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18962
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>

On 7/24/13 1:43 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 23 July 2013 15:38, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm a proxy guy, actually.
>
> I think that onus is on Roberto to more effectively motivate the need
> for this distinction.
>
> If indeed we agree that the two cases are distinct, then we probably
> need to consider ways to communicate this distinction effectively.  A
> separate setting that expressly disables push promise or limits the
> number of promises might work.
>

I'm very much in favor of this, be explicit about the client option to 
tell the server to never send push promises. It avoids any potential 
semantics overloading issues that we haven't yet foreseen. Plus, Roberto 
makes some pretty compelling arguments as to why it can make sense for a 
client to set MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS=0 but still want to see the push 
promises.

-- Leif