Re: SPDY Header Frames

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 13 July 2012 22:51 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 6286F11E8116 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:51:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.857
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.857 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.742, 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 Nag6ZjdsO6rK for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B99B611E80CB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:51:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Spoi0-00069s-Dr for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:51:36 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:51:36 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Spoi0-00069s-Dr@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Spohs-000697-Uq for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:51:28 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1Spohr-0003cS-KS for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 22:51:28 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q6DMp4et017110; Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:51:04 +0200
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 00:51:04 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20120713225104.GK16256@1wt.eu>
References: <CABP7RbepWH4ahSPHDU_M_w0tRVz_RRm1FV-jM_Y72=YHCVqO0g@mail.gmail.com> <46666.1342218442@critter.freebsd.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46666.1342218442@critter.freebsd.dk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Spohr-0003cS-KS e663d489407d507a6b5db0b45b56c7a6
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: SPDY Header Frames
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120713225104.GK16256@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/14175
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>

Hi Poul-Henning,

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 10:27:22PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <CABP7RbepWH4ahSPHDU_M_w0tRVz_RRm1FV-jM_Y72=YHCVqO0g@mail.gmail.com>
> , James M Snell writes:
> 
> >As discussed within draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00, and as has
> >been mentioned several times in discussion on list, handling of headers
> >within the current SPDY framing, and in particular the layering of HTTP/1.1
> >messages into SPDY frames is less than optimal. [...]
> 
> While I appreciate your willingness to keep trying to modify SPDY,
> I think it is premature to do so, certainly until we know what
> HTTP/2.0 should actually do and how it should do it.
> 
> For instance if we decide to do the envelope/substance split,
> (probably envelope/metadata/substance actually), that has pretty big
> implications for the requirements to the actual protocol.
> 
> Such fundamental questions should be resolved before we waste time
> trying to fine-tune representations.

I think such contributions here on the WG are useful. As you probably
have noticed when we spent countless hours rotating bits in every
possible combinations, starting from a blank page is extremely difficult,
and most of the progress comes from contributors who are able to comment
on what they like or don't like in the design.

Whatever will be retained as a basis for HTTP/2.0, this exercise is
useful and may incite other users to provide very valuable feedback.

Best regards,
Willy