IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams

William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> Wed, 06 March 2013 22:33 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 3EA6E21F861F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:33:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.174
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.174 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTP_ESCAPED_HOST=0.134, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, URI_HEX=0.368]
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 4wnAjrtTLLoH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D941C21F8659 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:33:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UDMsu-0005rq-04 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:32:28 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:32:28 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UDMsu-0005rq-04@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 1UDMsf-0005qg-TY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:32:13 +0000
Received: from mail-qe0-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <willchan@google.com>) id 1UDMsd-0008CJ-Fh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:32:13 +0000
Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id nd7so5702619qeb.38 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:31:45 -0800 (PST)
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=WVVsjTZlZwbYTDBfxBfYyob4k6VXzabPMIO++N31v1U=; b=I7NofASM475z+j/UY9NVWvLbrTBKr8I2ucpzo9EBB/FBDTk0Csh5ucb8svoN41BxM9 6P+6awnJ2bhHmSV8CZOfsogLhk8925sCo/TBtmEgLdI+XRSejv+LHRfUnEW6npicxyo/ hH2h+f0rUTrdMyQO6whaxThaQquI1WdfjAozWSTydgU23PtnwKvG4G9glmBEqQDhNLVN K4J90DWnYnNqG8TSRBdtGvCxQ8RQfjTQ8NS1UBEPZI82FXYrUCV1U0u3bDgouzgJWmzw YmSYrYdL2H3BRkWxc22I7xWPXBN/ebAqn3eELlKMWsT3CZLUXtMDCQeN8TzDQXpiChdo yWYw==
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=WVVsjTZlZwbYTDBfxBfYyob4k6VXzabPMIO++N31v1U=; b=cheh1qxB8nlUxKNANT7MWl07qQxVLycnBmJgLf4CPD5k+ETEDAEGVIZuALO0uWcXib ljSlDJ9/kL4Pa3u96xtDL0jzGgVzpdOtK9ed5jV+B4QIINmWZmr0EeEYpWyYwGpKJTf5 ixSW/2iQQREgpwwfeypabUGSf6tU24zCcnbe4=
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=WVVsjTZlZwbYTDBfxBfYyob4k6VXzabPMIO++N31v1U=; b=XD/DAIK/ZNHrDWe6DaayiwJ37Ucu1Md9mTMvcvrBPJw/9zcs2y0JdBMYEQSyK9QBds 48zX1ck4JjuuFtfsOIlj0rAru/aWsl1WZuRTIOtzbUlBNNjKwhclQHnkhwAEY7SWa22C eNYEJSG6toHQ9R8M8mGbtZ5f/ZOHBnXA8MNsLfHRiI4/C8CZTNZixQ/Kb91n3r05Y4Fn 1t/KelNYJ8e2PlVkZ4RfYWyEN06bnvayMH0VksCvqtD5NB9tKKM7AUHc69P60gH2qshy CV+KvCesz44DdyuIynmebEFIBOB5V2og9pntahQ0VPmcmtTi20z2LhS6YH7AOmzMOM1f lCig==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.62.2 with SMTP id u2mr7950055qer.22.1362609103324; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:31:43 -0800 (PST)
Sender: willchan@google.com
Received: by 10.229.135.210 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:31:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4AA3A95D6033ED488F8AE4E45F47448742A64482@WABOTH9MSGUSR8B.ITServices.sbc.com>
References: <4AA3A95D6033ED488F8AE4E45F47448742A64482@WABOTH9MSGUSR8B.ITServices.sbc.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 14:31:43 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Vo3eH-KjFHLqbRGvc3N0RVSTfkQ
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYjsbtR3QvPShWb3F-_F4E_FB7hjRrV3oPBN8wFg+OLg1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
To: "DRUTA, DAN" <dd5826@att.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bdc159e9269af04d749272b"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnSI5fwMUCluFJo+Uem9G5yideIOoR5buHkYb8ycSvWnvpIdbrF/5nw79z/aAyITDfQnvQI1fJXUedaaZnPuhLxPcxpBFIjE1w6h6Se0m2U5S3dumbf7vE9JtYFLkAMNz96qFTkeHc8gFDsCSDL2zyXWRm1Jdv5Ybge8lGyoS1D+mrQT2dL0jSO9GcH5mOqAwf80g4z
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.128.51; envelope-from=willchan@google.com; helo=mail-qe0-f51.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.389, 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=-0.628, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UDMsd-0008CJ-Fh c9726df2dfda650c04969bb767b08829
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported max_concurrent_streams
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAA4WUYjsbtR3QvPShWb3F-_F4E_FB7hjRrV3oPBN8wFg+OLg1A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16978
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>

Having the client to send a hint/signal to inform the server that the
server should not push resources (whether it be via resource inlining or
HTTP/2 server push) should not be conflated with the issue at hand: the
default value for the client's max_concurrent_streams limit. I think that
if you want to advertise/negotiate this, then you should propose a separate
mechanism for doing so.


On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 2:19 PM, DRUTA, DAN <dd5826@att.com> wrote:

>  *I agree with Gabriel** and the use cases he described**. *
>
> *Mobile clients still **run in more constraint environments and the
> ability to **negotiate **with the server** not to **use inlining even
> when server push is disabled** is quite important from user experience
> point of view.** When I request updated weather forecast on my phone I
> care less about the pretty sun image and more about the **actual
> forecasted temperature.*
>
> *Some form of a hint **should be sent to the server in that case** **with
> the **initial** request.*
>
> *Dan** Druta*
>
> *From*: Gabriel Montenegro <*Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com*<Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> >
> *Date*: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 01:23:04 +0000
> *To*: William Chan (陈智昌) <*willchan@chromium.org*<willchan@chromium.org?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>,
> Amos Jeffries <*squid3@treenet.co.nz*<squid3@treenet.co.nz?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> >
> *CC*: HTTP Working Group <*ietf-http-wg@w3.org*<ietf-http-wg@w3.org?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> >
>
> There’s two parties in this dance, and it takes both to want to do it. If
> a client wants at some point to not be fired upon strictly more than it
> requests for (perhaps because it is low on batteries or is very close to
> its monthly data allowance or because it just plain doesn’t feel like it),
> than a server inlining a bunch of stuff is like it shooting at the client.
> From the point of view of the client, getting fired at hurts. The client
> can very well decide never again to use such servers.
>
> If the server does not inline but instead uses the new fancy push
> capability, it might be friendlier fire, but getting fired at even if it’s
> “friendly” fire hurts just the same.
>
> Catering to the server’s wishes is fine and dandy, but that is only one
> part of the equation. I guess I’m a bit more optimistic in that I hope it
> will become possible for clients not to be fired at, instead of just
> changing from one type of fire to another.
>
> From: *willchan@google.com*<willchan@google.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>[mailto:
> *willchan@google.com*<willchan@google.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>]
> On Behalf Of William Chan (???)
> Sent: Saturday, 23 February, 2013 07:09
> To: Amos Jeffries
> Cc: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported
> max_concurrent_streams
>
> Sorry, I did not explicitly state a conditional that I thought was
> implicitly understood.
>
> *In situations where the server wants to push resources*, if the majority
> of clients disable HTTP/2 stream push, then servers will simply inline
> resources instead.
>
> You're right that push can always be abused. But in situations that it
> makes sense to push, it's better to use HTTP/2's push facility than to
> inline resources. And we should ensure that the push mechanism remains
> viable, otherwise servers will just inline in those situations.
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Amos Jeffries <*squid3@treenet.co.nz*<squid3@treenet.co.nz?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*squid3@treenet.co.nz*<squid3@treenet.co.nz?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>>
> wrote:
> On 23/02/2013 10:29 a.m., William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:
> Let's be careful about this issue, because as we've noted many times
> before, if the server can't leverage HTTP/2 to push streams, it is likely
> to just inline resources directly, which is definitely worse.
> Fundamentally, when the client issues a request, the server can send
> anything it wants in the response. Defaulting to 0 would most likely
> incentivize servers to to just inline resources, which is probably worse
> than sending push streams to clients which don't want it (I assert that in
> the open web, this should be a minority. If not, then HTTP/2 stream pushing
> will have failed and people will just inline resources).
>
> Sorry I just parsed that as a re-wording of "if it turns out the majority
> of clients disable push we can consider it failed and servers will just do
> it via inlining anyway."
>
> If that is the case, why are sites not already inlining _all_ of their
> page content and pushing it on first contact from any client. The answer
> should be obvious that it is a waste of resources for both client and
> server to do this at all on any large scale. Although, that said I'm still
> fielding questions about how to pre-cache entire sites like facebook and
> google :-( there will always be idiots whatever gets specified.
>
> Amos
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Gabriel Montenegro <*
> Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com*<Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com*<Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>
> <mailto:*Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com*<Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com*<Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>>>
> wrote:
>
>     There is harm borne by the unwilling client receiver: battery and
>     data allowance are not free.
>     *From:*Roberto Peon [mailto:*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> >
>     <mailto:*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> >>]
>     *Sent:* Friday, 22 February, 2013 08:24
>     *To:* Martin Thomson
>     *Cc:* Osama Mazahir; *ietf-http-wg@w3.org*<ietf-http-wg@w3.org?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*ietf-http-wg@w3.org*<ietf-http-wg@w3.org?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> >
>     <mailto:*ietf-http-wg@w3.org*<ietf-http-wg@w3.org?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*ietf-http-wg@w3.org*<ietf-http-wg@w3.org?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>>
> Group
>     *Subject:* Re: #40 - HTTP2 default value for client supported
>
>     max_concurrent_streams
>
>     Yup, I understand that part. :)
>
>     I'm doing a poor job of pointing out that any harm done by doing
>     something like this is borne by the party doing it.
>
>     ... so why mandate it-- if there turns out to be a positive
>     benefit of doing such a push in the future, fine.
>
>     I guess I'm attempting to argue that, unless we can figure out how
>     this causes harm/is likely to be done accidentally and cause
>     issues, then it is better to not say anything about it. Saying
>     something about it creates a spec with is more fragile.
>
>     -=R
>
>     On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Martin Thomson
>     <*martin.thomson@gmail.com*<martin.thomson@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*martin.thomson@gmail.com*<martin.thomson@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>
> <mailto:*martin.thomson@gmail.com*<martin.thomson@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*martin.thomson@gmail.com*<martin.thomson@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>>>
> wrote:
>
>         On 22 February 2013 05:29, Roberto Peon <*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> >
>         <mailto:*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>
> <mailto:*grmocg@gmail.com*<grmocg@gmail.com?Subject=RE%3A%20%2340%20-%20HTTP2%20default%20value%20for%20client%20supported%20%20max_concurrent_streams&In-Reply-To=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E&References=%253CCA566BAEAD6B3F4E8B5C5C4F61710C1163AAA591%40TK5EX14MBXW602.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com%253E>>>>
> wrote:
>         > What is the motivation for that?
>
>         I'm not suggesting that this is Osama's motivation, but look
>         at the
>         Upgrade scenario: the server is the first to send on the HTTP/2.0
>         session with a response. There's an obvious opportunity there
>         to push
>         prior to the client SETTINGS frame arriving. The TLS scenario
>         is less
>         interesting - the client sends SETTINGS prior to any request,
>         making
>         defaults non-interesting.
>
>
>
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email