Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory
Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Sat, 29 June 2013 19:32 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 6C65D21F9F97 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:32:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 nCcY7Z7cRlWg for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C187021F9F92 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ut0rw-00082W-P9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 19:31:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 19:31:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ut0rw-00082W-P9@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Ut0rj-00081h-01 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 19:31:23 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Ut0rg-0006Ji-PU for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 19:31:21 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f182.google.com with SMTP id va7so3046097obc.27 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=JaK1zu4MdmJ21KqWw+CDB51mQh0xUGel189e2aVRtW8=; b=FVFptwWOHDGg2WQtrxb7/3gCe9BrWl6VXX/N7+ypk+XJHs3cEeebIOg0rbffz4jqVC 2WCnJarCv9d4uIyuJRCIOJEOvE1YkmZjPRE/1D/1MEU2TBsvJa9ptw0Sk1Wfk8PjYCc1 j/x4sT0rltV5lfTntLg9I64/oHYpi8uLWT8O34N2lriNAhaXlXIA98BKvy5qJU9aCWZF rUCgrGK7KUw/Qj1F8vRUYU8CYr3xnM2s5wZ0pWG//A0aqs5MgAchq11TMdfeqggCgmZl qA/JU/gsXS2rdTjW1KzeKqSrhvLqX586TwTB4Sc1Q/7U+W0u06tnljH4fLMjGmKHgp7k nCFA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.140.168 with SMTP id rh8mr497724oeb.17.1372534254928; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.91.229 with HTTP; Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:30:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+pLO_ijfgbkYEKXn3xUq5-Kxw69k4oQhMc8+fL5tTtenN2x3A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnW2xi3pAKyg2Abi15Gb11ZCFi+D_QUQw1566BVXb65iHg@mail.gmail.com> <CABaLYCs8vb35CoL+A4mh7-PkbnKXxjz+jCJ_z-ivzYnYKF=VWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_gFrAow2==sZx8_57Hw81d24V4HaqJCEc63WhZSAoWdBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNd9dVzRBv1iXS59XQEkk32rK9EtfQs=c1rp+yYHSbG5dQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+pLO_ijfgbkYEKXn3xUq5-Kxw69k4oQhMc8+fL5tTtenN2x3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2013 12:30:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfO140h4UgS55P6Ouj2vEc7ZCZzGTBOWRD7+1DigRNUMw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2e4c46b508c904e0500809"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.182; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.687, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ut0rg-0006Ji-PU 58c9388bab45ca7581be6b2fba0a31af
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNfO140h4UgS55P6Ouj2vEc7ZCZzGTBOWRD7+1DigRNUMw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18422
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>
Again, what happens when the required settings are not in the frame? On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote: > If you don't want them to be mandatory then don't make them mandatory as > part of the Upgrade mechanism and rely on the defaults if you choose to > upgrade without including them. > > Consistency :) > > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:16 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Ug. Slippery slope. >> I'm happy to say the settings frame is mandatory, you SHOULD send >> settings you care about in the initial settings frame, and otherwise you >> get what you get. >> >> This is less complicated. What would be the result of not having the >> mandatory fields in the settings frame as proposed above? If it isn't >> 'close down the connection', the requirement is useless. >> >> -=R >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>wrote: >> >>> +1 To consistent handling of frames, whatever the rules are. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I believe the bytes are completely inconsequential. >>>> >>>> My goal with this was to make it so there is only one set of rules for >>>> SETTINGS frames. Currently, there is the "oh this is the first settings >>>> frame rules". >>>> >>>> This is not going to have impact on performance, but removing edge >>>> cases is desirable to me. >>>> >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Martin Thomson < >>>> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> This pull request proposes to make two settings mandatory in every >>>>> SETTINGS frame: SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS and >>>>> SETTINGS_INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE. >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/150 >>>>> >>>>> Gabriel's proposal for an HTTP/1.1 header for carrying settings in the >>>>> Upgrade made these mandatory only at that point, which didn't cover >>>>> the TLS handshake, or just starting from prior knowledge. >>>>> >>>>> Two questions: >>>>> - Do we want to make any settings mandatory, or are defaults >>>>> acceptable? >>>>> - Is this the right trade-off? Or are the 16 bytes on subsequent >>>>> SETTINGS frames completely intolerable. >>>>> >>>>> Note that if we make these settings mandatory, there might be other >>>>> settings in the future that will also be mandatory; e.g., the >>>>> compression context size. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
- [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Martin Thomson
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Mike Belshe
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Jeff Pinner
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Roberto Peon
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Jeff Pinner
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Roberto Peon
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Jeff Pinner
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Roberto Peon
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Jeff Pinner
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Roberto Peon
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Eliot Lear
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Jeff Pinner
- Re: [#150] Making certain settings mandatory Eliot Lear