Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)
Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> Tue, 27 August 2013 22:13 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 E860F21E80E5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:13:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, 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 3mcT4UYpLPMt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:13:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3A3521E80A3 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:13:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1VERVY-0001n7-Rq for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:13:04 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:13:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1VERVY-0001n7-Rq@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mike@belshe.com>) id 1VERVN-0001lv-AE for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:12:53 +0000
Received: from mail-bk0-f42.google.com ([209.85.214.42]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mike@belshe.com>) id 1VERVL-0004ZR-MI for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 22:12:53 +0000
Received: by mail-bk0-f42.google.com with SMTP id my10so1852858bkb.15 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=HnnfmfAk6e25pyEmrR+kSvrvY+6Wwdo1P1nHgeUNkM8=; b=UVqJY3gy7AumUdpUOTIV+dsLssyQSyHX0fmY7POPzwMT1HqwaaLlPdf3aALVVjjBwn ofZEo4uORts6S44O/zR35g320mNS0K1odu2QmhU621cU1OlGayN5soPHcHHuKx21cCeU ZMpzUnim0Qw7sBD1JvF6lOOCYLuDoRr8FfI8aoM03umAJ7/wotY5jtPPjYc67fJuEcxV cbbRVEgv6M63wbpolN75gPEPZtNHHpqJ7lJdWmsCBCGN/BwLVVS98XkLrjL1E2Usd4SM QGDCVQ1CqRAkrtPHlsnT1g2WeO8msRoIMXB+63sik3UYNt2UADleN/jtxNe56ra6zEx7 C8yA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmHJKVo/JNgFTVtkZTTecLgDaMzOZI3RBd25ISThUP5rChTFj6fAokfFduzyJC8+H0RbQuy
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.205.7.6 with SMTP id om6mr16447187bkb.18.1377641545194; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.168.130 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D9D602D39A98E34D9C43E965BEC7439826988809@nambx08.corp.adobe.com>
References: <CAP+FsNeMqB0+igBZjjsT-Xb+17YdUyptBJ2N0x9_jaaLYzKisQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNcvR5q3N2iLv6wM6LQXS72sg1pdvTWdU9rsSFAP8OHpwA@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111B7D710@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CABaLYCuom7VH+9VJrbe7-D+S7YfGtbS59ne5fG03Zrm=U5tc0Q@mail.gmail.com> <D9D602D39A98E34D9C43E965BEC7439826988809@nambx08.corp.adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:12:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABaLYCtoVJ9swP12r5foz2d6Gr1PtjuiXdBkXEeEoan+dF+XeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
To: Michael Thornburgh <mthornbu@adobe.com>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "tsvwg@ietf.org" <tsvwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="20cf30223901ee1ac704e4f52a14"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.214.42; envelope-from=mike@belshe.com; helo=mail-bk0-f42.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.601, FRT_ADOBE2=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1VERVL-0004ZR-MI 56192478a0206de1372703ac72cbbc80
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABaLYCtoVJ9swP12r5foz2d6Gr1PtjuiXdBkXEeEoan+dF+XeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/19412
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 Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Thornburgh <mthornbu@adobe.com>wrote: > if you’re bringing up something like QUIC, i’ll point out that RTMFP > addresses almost every point on The List, and is currently widely deployed > in the Internet (in Flash Player) with 5+ years of deployment experience. > RTMFP is a general-purpose transport protocol that runs on top of UDP and > provides prioritization, parallel message channels (“flows”), partial > reliability, shared congestion control, a generalized security framework, > independent flow control for every flow/channel, no flow-flow HOL blocking, > IP address mobility, and more. RTMFP sessions start in 2 RTT, and > arbitrary numbers of unidirectional flows in that session can be started in > 0 RTT. flows are named with arbitrary/opaque-to-RTMFP metadata instead of > port or stream numbers. “return flow association” generalizes > bidirectional communication to arbitrarily complex trees of flows, which > can more naturally model structured data transport (such as > request/multiple-response).**** > > ** ** > > RTMFP is described here:**** > > ** ** > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thornburgh-adobe-rtmfp**** > > ** ** > > and is currently in the RFC Editor’s queue for publication as an > Informational RFC. > Sounds cool. Why don't you benchmark it in a browser? If it does all this stuff, it should be faster today. > **** > > ** ** > > note that while SCTP might not technically have HOL blocking > stream-stream, the structure of its acknowledgements and the Transmission > Sequence Number semantics can cause a priority inversion during periods of > congestion. SCTP does not have independent flow control for each stream.* > *** > > ** ** > > some thoughts on “fast channel startup with no state at the server”:**** > > ** ** > > 1) you will typically want some kind of handshake with the server to > establish that the client is actually at the address it appears to be > coming from, to avoid TCP’s “SYN flood” problem. that means at least one > RTT when you have no current state at the server for a client. > When at Google, we devised several systems to counteract this. The winning candidate (never implemented) was a hybrid solution: you let the first one in for free (no RTT), and require RTTs for the secondary parallel requests until confidence is established. This gives you most of the perf benefit. > **** > > ** ** > > 2) when designing RTMFP, we rejected a “connection reset” message that > could be sent by a server to a client that thought it had a connection when > no connection existed in the server (for example, if the server rebooted or > timed out the connection but the client didn’t know), as that would be an > abusable denial-of-service vector. > Not if it ran atop a secured, encrypted channel :-) > **** > > ** ** > > 3) if you’re willing to maintain some state at a server, you can leave > an RTMFP session open for a long time, and use the “address mobility” > capability to handle the case when a client changes addresses (for example, > on getting a new translation in a NAT after a quiet period). the method > described in Section 3.5.4.2 of the RTMFP spec currently has a 1 RTT cost > to verify the address change. that method could be modified to allow a > provisional change of address immediately, with a switch back to the old > address if the verification fails. > Maybe, but generally, I think that doesn't scales enough or as well as it could.... I was thinking client state, but happy to be proven wrong. > **** > > ** ** > > 4) if you’ve been idle for long enough to time out a session (minutes?), > then establishing a new session (even at a cost of a couple RTTs) shouldn’t > perceptually be a big deal. > I disagree :-) RTTs are still 100+ms. Thats money. Mike > **** > > ** ** > > -michael thornburgh**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:tsvwg-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf > Of *Mike Belshe > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 2:31 AM > *To:* Yoav Nir > *Cc:* HTTP Working Group; tsvwg@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desired features)*** > * > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote:**** > > I think most of that is addressed in SCTP. Except the deployment part. > Standards people can’t force vendors of operating systems or Linux > distributions to include any feature. So we have a lot of “version 2”s in > the IETF that take a very long time to get deployed. **** > > **** > > It’s also much more attractive to define a new thing (like SCTP) than to > make something old work a little better. SCTP was sexier than TCPM.**** > > **** > > So it took ages to get deployment of IPv6, IKEv2, TLS 1.2, and all three > are still used far less than IPv4, IKEv1 and TLS 1.0. SCTP is used almost > never. HTTP/2 will likely fare better because the vendors are more involved > and committed, but it’s hard to make predictions, especially about the > future.**** > > ** ** > > You're right, SCTP is non-deployable, which makes it a non-starter. SCTP > also does not address handshake issues or TLS issues.**** > > ** ** > > I don't mean to sound inflammatory - but for all intents and purposes, the > next generation transport will need to be in user space and run on top of > UDP. There simply is no other deployable option on the table. QUIC is > already reasonably far at exploring these issues: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC**** > > ** ** > > Mike**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > **** > > **** > > Yoav**** > > **** > > *From:* Roberto Peon [mailto:grmocg@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:16 AM**** > > > *To:* HTTP Working Group; tsvwg@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: The List (of application-layer desired features)**** > > **** > > Actually sending to the right list for TSVWG...**** > > **** > > -=R**** > > **** > > On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:**** > > For those of you who missed it, at the HTTPBis/TSVG joint session, a > question about what applications want from the transport (I really want to > put quotes around that) came up.**** > > **** > > Here is a rendition of what was on the note that I jotted down in response > to this question, and which I passed to people at the mic.**** > > **** > > (Apps-folks want the following) Deployed in 1996:**** > > -----------------------------------------**** > > - Prioritization**** > > - Partial Reliability**** > > - "Shared" congestion between multiple streams**** > > - Security**** > > - No HOL blocking on stream X when loss on stream Y**** > > - Cheap/Fast channel/connection setup**** > > - Wide, "safe" deployment**** > > - Competes with TCP/HTTP/1.1 (performance-wise)**** > > - Multipath/roaming robustness, i.e. the "driveway" problem**** > > **** > > **** > > I'll reiterate that by far the most important feature is "is deployed".*** > * > > Nothing else matters until that is true, at least at the application-layer. > **** > > -=R**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > > > Email secured by Check Point **** > > ** ** >
- The List (of application-layer desired features) Roberto Peon
- Re: The List (of application-layer desired featur… Roberto Peon
- RE: The List (of application-layer desired featur… Scharf, Michael (Michael)
- Re: The List (of application-layer desired featur… Roberto Peon
- RE: The List (of application-layer desired featur… Yoav Nir
- Re: The List (of application-layer desired featur… Mike Belshe
- Re: The List (of application-layer desired featur… Mike Belshe
- Re: The List (of application-layer desired featur… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- RE: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Thornburgh
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Ted Hardie
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Mike Belshe
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Roberto Peon
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- RE: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Thornburgh
- RE: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Thornburgh
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Mike Belshe
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Mike Belshe
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Ryan Hamilton
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: The List (of application-layer desired featur… Nico Williams
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Roberto Peon
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Stephen Farrell
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Roberto Peon
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Roberto Peon
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Yuchung Cheng
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Roberto Peon
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Roberto Peon
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Nico Williams
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Michael Welzl
- Re: [tsvwg] The List (of application-layer desire… Nico Williams