Re: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Sat, 27 April 2013 06:14 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 986E921F9D0F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, 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 qSOYX+qmknD4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:14:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1CBC21F9D0B for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Apr 2013 23:14:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UVyNZ-00068x-6j for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:13:01 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:13:01 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UVyNZ-00068x-6j@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UVyNS-00067E-1T for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:12:54 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UVyNR-0000zw-AC for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 06:12:53 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.190.66]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 292AE509B5; Sat, 27 Apr 2013 02:12:29 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <517A42AE.6060305@neclab.eu>
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 16:12:27 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Lars Eggert <lars@netapp.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <62C9BA5C-1C94-4787-A416-E3359D49EF3B@mnot.net>
References: <8e7e9a7db6204492afde5d8883570579@BN1PR03MB006.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <CAP+FsNeG4ew88sWs6OL+PQXbqSANE6smRTJuVBzo8ppkLVPYtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3HoZ2zHBNpRw7NrVZO5UsdnPuW3ZiSu56ppM5fqhaP+5=uFQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNf2NE+mH2a6KxdNan6oh1Uvb3LoVojCuU9kOV1aQs3WkQ@mail.gmail.com> <a9421189aa294987a1627019a3411902@BN1PR03MB072.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <BA43F8F6-8B7F-4B34-B620-2806A02A5AA1@mnot.net> <517A42AE.6060305@neclab.eu>
To: Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.389, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UVyNR-0000zw-AC 20d2cecffa89014791c0bf9d7d17905b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/62C9BA5C-1C94-4787-A416-E3359D49EF3B@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17631
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 26/04/2013, at 7:02 PM, Martin Stiemerling <Martin.Stiemerling@neclab.eu>; wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm joining in late and have to second what Lars and other pointed out on that topic in respect of letting TCP do its job.
> 
> On 04/15/2013 08:04 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>> As for my opinion about what to do: I think we should delete this
>>> TCP congestion window setting from HTTP/2.0.
>>> 
>>> This is as out of scope as I’ve ever seen at the IETF. Modifying
>>> TCP (by modifying its contract to upper layers such as HTTP, and by
>>> modifying its state machine) is not something that can be done
>>> outside of the Transport Area. I’m cc-ing Lars Eggert and Martin
>>> Stiemerling (former and current Transport ADs), in case they have
>>> additional comments or clarifications.
>> 
>> I'd love to hear what Transport folks have to say on-list.
>> 
>> I've also been talking with the Martin about having more Transport
>> cross-fertilisation; we're hoping to spend some time on discussing
>> relevant issues in Berlin.
> 
> I wonder if we should have a HTTPbis presentation and discussion of the issue the HTTPbis WG faces to the TCPM group at the IETF in Berlin, sort of a joint session?


Makes sense to me. I'm happy to give some time in the HTTPbis session to this, or we could schedule a separate joint meeting.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/