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

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Thu, 25 April 2013 23:14 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 13DAB21F9722 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:14:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.650, 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 6XtX3hw3Q0Ry for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84F5621F96FB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UVVNB-00049l-MK for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:14:41 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:14:41 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UVVNB-00049l-MK@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UVVN7-000491-LT for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:14:37 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f54.google.com ([209.85.219.54]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1UVVN7-0008Vk-6R for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 23:14:37 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l20so3366344oag.41 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=BXIdrf3rtUnvHHyCYFHvMH7FT495aMvJwGrfI8+zi6A=; b=nvVRcquxqVMUA0npuhRjihPf34pRvhQ2y1ENFnX4ycp0V1GwfQLgBORbphMY4vdj2r 9B62YXSF+EQ/N25fQG0Ul47YxtbrrBUigBV9zW3y2ZKWoaPLOQV7BuVIankPJt4r0pMS ifoprDbUPZV9nJBngE1YW3dirFBJo2Y+ySCNqjn7Ba4g0Wf/cuEy4eDg9TMnHxSml2Sa ZmF9lFDkIhHK2HjT10uC+REFzR+3oTuJnCzvCTEleFQTXLO/wh/OcUY31Czoc527PeHU oaZIdzcHRFYcMQ+qnjFX6uVFrgGv/7kZ1//YZKZTfO8mXgkdLdJEJWFXgQ9VsYAkmbjf dSbA==
X-Received: by 10.60.92.230 with SMTP id cp6mr21485891oeb.91.1366931651144; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVoHv+Wf=oYN=RSq2GHod-KrZ5gPq-gYmNvcRpMWFjNEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbdBe-Xkx+CMvpN=_oNAqm6SyLyL+XNHRUKSqn8mjSDw1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW=Ve=9p2do5PncTVswTYCZqt-LMK50SYCKV1r8zEg=SQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbc=hYTxuGm7jn=eDipbA23UW3MUc_jx2ALHfqHQt94OJg@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVoHv+Wf=oYN=RSq2GHod-KrZ5gPq-gYmNvcRpMWFjNEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 16:13:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdH+YnH2V8HX=1YzrT-m06ggdXNGqvEMwng2nDv5AeXXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.54; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f54.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.622, 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 1UVVN7-0008Vk-6R 1a6f97a2b07cdc73ac6cc45ab28d2fec
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/CABP7RbdH+YnH2V8HX=1YzrT-m06ggdXNGqvEMwng2nDv5AeXXg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17580
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>

Yes, Outward bound only.


On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com>; wrote:
> On 25 April 2013 12:33, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>; wrote:
>> Perhaps a simpler approach would be to just redefine the limit such
>> that an endpoint MUST NOT have more than MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS in the
>> Open state at any given time. We have already established that once
>> the stream is half-closed, new frames cannot be sent, so once the
>> server half-closes a steam it initiates, the counter is decremented
>> and the server is permitted to initiate another stream. The client can
>> choose to reject those additional streams if it chooses.
>
> Do you mean that only outward bound streams count toward the
> concurrency limit.  That could be workable; it's certainly easier to
> explain.