Re: Git Issues: Reserved Stream-ID Bit

William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> Sat, 20 April 2013 21:05 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 1ED4421F8AE8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:05:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 yw03tWTlTn+D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CD8221F8A0C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UTexY-000827-2Q for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:04:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:04:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UTexY-000827-2Q@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1UTexT-00081L-HU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:04:31 +0000
Received: from mail-qe0-f52.google.com ([209.85.128.52]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1UTexS-0006fz-Gl for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:04:31 +0000
Received: by mail-qe0-f52.google.com with SMTP id jy17so3389778qeb.25 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zuD32wy25vJin5e4bFhJtetqASFMSyCJ3RG30IDAf2o=; b=kngrKvLlSVnDHnAuA2pF2jdeHdODHqfZDPfBOtOIcKPu268I3kW+wxxUuSKkEJBD/b sf/wqfXgpWESlUjtBzEvFPCxME8WXDFcvpm4EIp6lzOIe5UI5qiOJ87y0dfnrsMAu83S S0yud3j/5ck7VfcdBusoyY3BUP8XQPYIbvFCKJQvjHVjFj42Hk0lDlmW1jYh0nz2xr55 9GmSiJSdgQu+QyVYcogcYe982BCLUVtwEB9GQ3DaqwIoSrVfkA3TII6KD4EWBGRe6zbb MTPV2gdI0kw6CuVQuaHDHT+cJJ+yZns0HIdQo8PwqgWbUAvIdclGC0VZDxxlKGu5U7xD lTMA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=zuD32wy25vJin5e4bFhJtetqASFMSyCJ3RG30IDAf2o=; b=BM4D5RhmdDLKyBS8oogx8+B9fG/UQFGvuOJbs9q2w94uy+Jov11ywmpKR6KR5J5uti wdNflu8CNIbYoAIXgIMAf0Y4fpW8HDFnnmKtwYIGqGaFudWx9YdfENUXVn8ppRc0meMF 2OGYBJC0QR01kDAeuqPbyHcjbY216lgkWJcKM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :x-gm-message-state; bh=zuD32wy25vJin5e4bFhJtetqASFMSyCJ3RG30IDAf2o=; b=d7U1m4QriA9MDuDncV0GaMsAoJJxJDDOiXlldrY30Fx1ZUt2PzNuMKyhBk9dkaU1RE bUdwH7AgCPESJ5loLpYf3KK8Q64RqQ5/n4XEtG6RHpKHCsGAcIndQIIW0Ch2WucYfV+H NabHjdpRSpCW2FgeQo4VbB2Etd1lgpWtF4CXhhcWfUzlcx+0b2DWM5JWIA8zjMHPQ0AD e65tBJWhgvXUvAa3yJ4pHxE12gMdYDHGZ0THF/g/7ZLdwOCRNRULdWOpm1Wbvq7JTi2w 0LvF2Y5R/CrdhtJkFCz1sodch4gQfdVoHJhSYi5lZ+IEN72DPL4PiJBkyN6zxlPLVaQq zyoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.19.3 with SMTP id a3mr8000292qee.22.1366491844661; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: willchan@google.com
Received: by 10.229.180.4 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbeszchSvdintd2ivt+b9vzs04VFAj+BPpq5Gr6d3rWT6A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbeszchSvdintd2ivt+b9vzs04VFAj+BPpq5Gr6d3rWT6A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 14:04:04 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: AA1Dzhg76RaMzePBe2rn5CGxapI
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYg8Jw5FC_SrckOie3nRuOzUyi1Cv4hhZX6BNeYBL4pn-g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd766aafd6ec004dad12c57
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQn5kHp4HS9xGTwC5RKlCE6nVtEG5Jwio4BTOaHTEhC8yZVi0p39IuHTzSKKc6ExDy79wHq9+tcLklytwvM55WpqaVheGMkSn0RbYiBc6mA9K+6i513w6di7wGFISwAwGyHNR5w6z717w8q72dEQKikSn6q1hA7hWbQSougXlIA8tV02o1R/nN7vh2J8HZDYObtk7boN
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.128.52; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-qe0-f52.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.332, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.702, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UTexS-0006fz-Gl 9f2df2c9942f70d772392fa2a3dac719
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Git Issues: Reserved Stream-ID Bit
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYg8Jw5FC_SrckOie3nRuOzUyi1Cv4hhZX6BNeYBL4pn-g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17434
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>

Let's kill this thread. There's already another email thread on this:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0135.html.
Respond there?

And I don't grok your proposal. Even/odd is distinguished via a single bit.
Your proposal seems to suggest using a single bit to indicate
directionality. That sounds like the same thing, except maybe you're
changing which bit is getting used. And I guess you're arguing that you
want to use the reserved bit to get twice the stream id space. I don't see
any compelling argument which says the factor of 2 difference will matter
much either way.

If no one wants to use the reserved bit, sure, let's use it for the stream
id space. Whatever. But if we foresee use (like SPDY/4 proposes to do so
with reprioritization), then maybe we want to reserve that bit. I don't
care if it gets removed from the current draft spec.

Anyway, let's move this back to the other thread rather than forking
threads unnecessarily.


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:43 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Per: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/67
>
> The question is: "R: A reserved 1-bit field. The semantics of this bit
> are not defined...What is the purpose for this field?...Why not just
> have a 32-bit stream identifier?
>
> Currently, the spec mandates that stream ID's originating from the
> client must be odd, and stream ID's originating from the server must
> be even. This makes for a much more restricted range of stream id's
> and ensures that they'll be used up much faster. Personally, I'd
> prefer that this extra reserved bit be used to indicate the
> "directionality" of the stream. All streams originating from the
> client would have this bit unset, all streams originating from the
> server would have this bit set. This gives each side a total of
> (2^32)-1 streams to work with. That ought to be more than enough.
>
>