Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Mon, 29 April 2013 21:09 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 9830221F9C09 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:09:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.508
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.508 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.090, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 g5EGQxOUIxOp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC0CA21F9BC2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UWvJw-0004MT-Ek for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:09:12 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:09:12 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UWvJw-0004MT-Ek@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 1UWvJm-0004Ln-Lz for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:09:02 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.219.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UWvJl-0004rm-Tc for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 21:09:02 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id j6so6462946oag.23 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:08:36 -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=vq1+74+EZ0xYsbvLw6TIYs2UKmz3hJIRJU9HJ/DtS4I=; b=ZY4yvN3aPS2GzdwdK6VnF7u4vRMi4zfjLCgLaDHRX1e9un+bxHRV7FEN1QdFRatcea Twf8TkCqvbho5DV1D1liso+pr2d//YAH/uD5zFiK/HxvBOeaQFlJuwsNh3x0sdwu63Fx HDkL6GM4n/y9GeOUeVKCox0/wOiOgdJingCd0I83/L47AG0pjpYlBO+Qy4GiDAgrqTR3 YHxa03VTjr6PJk0KiTIhL7UW+OrE2343vs9IbjQR7oe8rrEfg8vyz6sGPv9TfVYf5Ipx oLE/+amQVb1kQBf4RTgFSBpxTVmURPTO1K5K7ZA78mGFaJiP0drv+YddWtzh0Zonh/An uTCA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.42.135 with SMTP id o7mr340169oel.97.1367269715951; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVdU=cZ53Bqg5Un=E80NMpcgYO37DVmwUFW0O-i7SNf8w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbdBe-Xkx+CMvpN=_oNAqm6SyLyL+XNHRUKSqn8mjSDw1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgCiyWerT0tUUVKcbNPqdTGuXHd_MG59DjcUsEWst5t7g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVdU=cZ53Bqg5Un=E80NMpcgYO37DVmwUFW0O-i7SNf8w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:08:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfENXLGaMFniFRFdawq9suWrvYxBCRiAc37W9NuHL-isA@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?Q2hhbldpbGxpYW0o6ZmI5pm65piMKQ==?= <willchan@chromium.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c206aebb466e04db8649d1
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.50; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.662, 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 1UWvJl-0004rm-Tc d3f1e7b907bbc4aa7f75d6a1a1521c8b
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/CABP7RbfENXLGaMFniFRFdawq9suWrvYxBCRiAc37W9NuHL-isA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17677
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>

It does not attempt to solve the core problem completely.  If anything it
just pushes it down the road a bit.  As currently defined,  servers will
top out quickly on the number of streams they can push.  With the revised
scheme I proposed, we would give the recipient more control over the
decision making process. A server will run up to the limits just as fast,
but the recipient could allow the server to keep right on going if it
wishes. In other words,  less coordination required between the endpoints.

On Apr 29, 2013 11:20 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:
[snip]
>
> 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.