Re: http/2 initial limits - i see flow control initial limits specified, but not stream limits

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 03 May 2013 22:48 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 BD45721F8EEC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 15:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=5.599, 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 GvQ4Wyn15-G0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 15:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FE7B21F8696 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 15:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UYOlC-00080c-Md for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 22:47:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 22:47:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UYOlC-00080c-Md@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UYOky-0007zs-Sc for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 22:47:12 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f170.google.com ([209.85.212.170]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UYOkx-0004LS-KM for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 22:47:12 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f170.google.com with SMTP id hq12so1189290wib.5 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 03 May 2013 15:46:45 -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=gYN/8LYa//LZjWX8Vlutc2dtgco1tL85wgdLfmM4VY4=; b=sOoJu3VpkMiSHh1p1t+0a28f+Ia+3JpjKGP2JfKLyIRNBIB8jhE0Rft/ibfxUL5MhG Q1dLUSvfWkECuPTNUyeorILolWYu+a/rmE/z8+E0ufpyZ3vv2BROd1SxWB1984Ny+iHc 70Y9NjVu9UfzbpvHan+rAXGQYXJXd3uYzOCY0N4FVaDRh5Eja5n6SzvLarshsPp4RXbP 17ZhwC78KaEtKvlyB0d07lg0o0q87cMGh8iQ+JDfCgH/nKxhpB+Vq1/khGpzJATmDNZ6 6JUS38OfFwhWHOlPvwz+FaMbU9twoOxNhi5qE7dvEj3rJXwXk6VJ+64qE0/wImGz/RN1 33lg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.189.41 with SMTP id gf9mr106972wic.32.1367621205306; Fri, 03 May 2013 15:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.33.102 with HTTP; Fri, 3 May 2013 15:46:45 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNesYysCpM60bEWBWk2_BzHpBtRUahck2K91TPX979GT1Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA4WUYjnMupHPL8i13qzNTYr4dDjc_-ygZABaM1C6c8zUuMGJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfxGehBXw+114wyaKJaTQV1rLqCiZXq6KERWbO_HRRpBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYg_zRcyU1Qju+MA_4YT3FJB4PVAWi+iVkqi=9uvAo84YA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdCWOQZRSmqTtc_X7qKnRi=vRBpQDH3PaZE42ZQbg--Jw@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNesYysCpM60bEWBWk2_BzHpBtRUahck2K91TPX979GT1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 15:46:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW50TEaDoieOa3t3fSK7mCPECNzyZTSyQYD2ZqQKuznHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.212.170; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wi0-f170.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.697, 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: lisa.w3.org 1UYOkx-0004LS-KM dc19beeb6d79fed853db7b624a01dc63
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: http/2 initial limits - i see flow control initial limits specified, but not stream limits
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnW50TEaDoieOa3t3fSK7mCPECNzyZTSyQYD2ZqQKuznHA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17825
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 3 May 2013 14:22, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>; wrote:
> This does differ from SPDY,

This doesn't differ from the SPDY we were given.

> but (still) seems reasonable given the number of
> streams created in the initial RTT shouldn't be unbounded anyway.
> Assuming we have persisted settings (which is in doubt, I guess), this would
> only be a problem for the first RTT in a session where we didn't have the
> persisted setting.

I think that this default is under contention still:
https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/40

We may ultimately determine that some value between 0 (what #40
proposes) and infinity (status quo) is more appropriate.