Re: 3.3.1 Frame Header: Purpose of 1-bit reserved field?

Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net> Mon, 15 April 2013 16:17 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 5563621F8F70 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:17:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 JxEuRvfsgzGb for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30D421F86D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:16:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1URm4s-0006F3-Sb for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:16:22 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:16:22 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1URm4s-0006F3-Sb@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <brianp@brianp.net>) id 1URm4g-0006Cu-6R for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:16:10 +0000
Received: from mail-we0-f172.google.com ([74.125.82.172]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <brianp@brianp.net>) id 1URm4e-0006LF-Mk for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 16:16:10 +0000
Received: by mail-we0-f172.google.com with SMTP id r3so3764412wey.31 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ubBCdiM8cN7vxo1PooQRJ/JMbTSxSyF1en7Frsqt4SA=; b=GRLHT27XaIJxXpS+8+/x86RtzLAHDkq67mVIFFWj8o9DmLtiFJ9YD4DLF+0ls97UtL O3+MXFB8DhVx7YginG2IddhYsQPooGz/qlA3iz/ry/DsTtHJOLtkUDbLWYzaYwMPPHDA W29tJqFZ5yIO2nl0Xer7SDma9pBGmpJXRvhD8ecObCir8ULXzcoSsCGS9M5UBC/mTDbl uoP5Xo/sz5kDxObFWRLAi/+khvdHAuTZokKkvk2272D9iIO0Aj7YJxtAVEuuUsmgs1nj 7JcQRxJOz4ly2tHZ4Qh/Qh+3HoLE38Km6DwXNCnrHzqTrcoBMMaxYAyRpkzEQDPc6Iic I/qw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.24.65 with SMTP id s1mr13398362wif.0.1366042542385; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.5.99 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [166.147.80.225]
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNf1jds77oFP=KK+QL5ZU0af9OOJFL=pFsdnmPHaZ2jbnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <em510058b6-8c4a-4e11-9597-f756ef5ed08d@bombed> <9A2814A1-C78E-4C27-ADBF-F97F652B2E60@mnot.net> <CAP+FsNf1jds77oFP=KK+QL5ZU0af9OOJFL=pFsdnmPHaZ2jbnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 09:15:42 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAbTgTsczdi3uN4fERxoyEc6zMQeMRQuvj00GqAkd=u_U1kVdg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdf2a7cbeb304da68907b
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkSjUSJfr1wlPBjgfjm3MH3b+2jPCwxASfsmxJwIqk2V0KnnIsnF7H9jEpophK5b+80VO9Y
Received-SPF: none client-ip=74.125.82.172; envelope-from=brianp@brianp.net; helo=mail-we0-f172.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.151, BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1URm4e-0006LF-Mk 43583410dd07f04c58a085472b5f8acc
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: 3.3.1 Frame Header: Purpose of 1-bit reserved field?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAAbTgTsczdi3uN4fERxoyEc6zMQeMRQuvj00GqAkd=u_U1kVdg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17235
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>

I recommend keeping that bit reserved and leaving Stream ID at 31 bits for
an additional reason: there are some very common programming languages with
only signed 32-bit integers, and inattentive implementors who try to
enforce assertions like "stream IDs must increase monotonically" will
encounter surprises.  Or, more likely, their users will encounter
surprises, years later.

On Saturday, April 13, 2013, Roberto Peon wrote:

> This is for prioritization experimentation in the future. The bit allows
> for priority level vs resource ordering without bloating the payload of a
> reprint frame.
> It was originally for control vs data.
>
> -=R
> On Apr 12, 2013 11:50 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'mnot@mnot.net');>>
> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the minutes from Tokyo, this was originally for control vs.
>> data (as in SPDY).
>>
>> I think there's been some discussion about discarding the control bit;
>> OTOH, if people are going to define extension frames, it'd be nice for
>> intermediaries to know whether they count against flow control without
>> having to understand their semantics...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> On 13/04/2013, at 3:43 PM, Adrien W. de Croy <adrien@qbik.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'adrien@qbik.com');>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > future proofing?  E.g. if we need to move to another format or size for
>> stream ID?
>> >
>> >
>> > ------ Original Message ------
>> > From: "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com<javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com');>
>> >
>> > To: "'ietf-http-wg@w3.org <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
>> 'ietf-http-wg@w3.org');>'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org <javascript:_e({},
>> 'cvml', 'ietf-http-wg@w3.org');>>
>> > Sent: 13/04/2013 12:48:46 p.m.
>> > Subject: 3.3.1 Frame Header: Purpose of 1-bit reserved field?
>> >> 3.3.1. Frame Header
>> >>
>> >>  |R| Stream Identifier (31) |
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>   R: A reserved 1-bit field. The semantics of this bit are not defined.
>> >>
>> >> I was curious about the purpose for the 1-bit reserved field. Can it
>> be deleted and the Stream Identifier increased to 32 bits?
>> >>
>> >> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/67
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Brian Raymor
>> >> Senior Program Manager
>> >> Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc.
>> >> A subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>