IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: http/2 initial limits - i see flow control initial limits specified, but not stream limits

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Fri, 03 May 2013 21:23 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 50A5A21F925A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:23:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.788
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.788 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.810, 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 bLJMTSOB-xDa for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:23:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB0AD21F8619 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:22:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UYNRF-00073N-6N for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 21:22:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 21:22:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UYNRF-00073N-6N@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 1UYNR5-00070V-7q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 21:22:35 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f177.google.com ([209.85.214.177]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UYNR3-00035x-Fh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 21:22:35 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f177.google.com with SMTP id un3so1768248obb.22 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 03 May 2013 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cOnzA6Y4esgme8CcU32DtqgVHRNBkss1ExLTNjCsbSI=; b=aKSImmALyJDIALiGNuse9fvNYSqzQl4FkviY+2nTB7VvTseiFkN7WEEvFuNGfqVZbg /NblATniZZqQJRQRnR8A611lG4s3sKGEb3mz51wyh2FTHslcVj3Dp3sAgIU0riNNtc7Q L91wfNEFBSKsBYSK1Npywl7PTRZr78DlBVtQrBwwO9t9FLz934y7R4/VLjeGHQrH9Ke8 utY8j59J2mkPKKtc1MjG30jOMfXbvYgvMX6qGl5xHaxxkbdMbypzSMv2Z2AE/w7s3ceT uoLHVYXATKY4dFM62nIyBI1dizpag2LN33Nqyzc4m0Gu/oZ48M/zVwP23Kze2KNZZQMO KgwA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.143.7 with SMTP id sa7mr3381809obb.0.1367616127499; Fri, 03 May 2013 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.130.139 with HTTP; Fri, 3 May 2013 14:22:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbdCWOQZRSmqTtc_X7qKnRi=vRBpQDH3PaZE42ZQbg--Jw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA4WUYjnMupHPL8i13qzNTYr4dDjc_-ygZABaM1C6c8zUuMGJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfxGehBXw+114wyaKJaTQV1rLqCiZXq6KERWbO_HRRpBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYg_zRcyU1Qju+MA_4YT3FJB4PVAWi+iVkqi=9uvAo84YA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdCWOQZRSmqTtc_X7qKnRi=vRBpQDH3PaZE42ZQbg--Jw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 14:22:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNesYysCpM60bEWBWk2_BzHpBtRUahck2K91TPX979GT1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8ff2562278071004dbd6f1f9"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.177; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f177.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.686, 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 1UYNR3-00035x-Fh 40bf086902c87cd77c1938d143af2aa4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: http/2 initial limits - i see flow control initial limits specified, but not stream limits
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNesYysCpM60bEWBWk2_BzHpBtRUahck2K91TPX979GT1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17818
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>

This does differ from SPDY, but (still) seems reasonable given the number
of streams created in the initial RTT shouldn't be unbounded anyway.
Assuming we have persisted settings (which is in doubt, I guess), this
would only be a problem for the first RTT in a session where we didn't have
the persisted setting.


On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:04 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> Currently in the trunk:
>
>     indicates the maximum number of concurrent streams that the sender
> will allow.
>     This limit is directional: it applies to the number
>     of streams that the sender permits the receiver to create. By
> default there is no
>     limit.  It is recommended that this value be no smaller than 100,
>     so as to not unnecessarily limit parallelism.
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:52 AM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > The setting is there, but I don't see the initial limit, which I believe
> was
> > 100.
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:47 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Which limits specifically? SETTINGS_MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS is still
> >> there. Are there others you're concerned about?
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:37 AM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> >> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > Did the stream limits disappear by accident?
> >
> >
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email