Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items)

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Sat, 11 May 2013 01:32 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 CF2A121F89CF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2013 18:32:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.24
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.24 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-2.642, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_SUMOF=5, 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 JWRY8NKoDX56 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 May 2013 18:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 687B921F89B2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 18:31:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UayeO-0003f6-W9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 11 May 2013 01:31:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 01:31:04 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UayeO-0003f6-W9@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 1UayeE-0003dZ-1a for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 11 May 2013 01:30:54 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1UayeA-0000MB-Sx for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 11 May 2013 01:30:54 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id m1so1697974oag.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 10 May 2013 18:30:25 -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=0+2Zuzq+DWqAEWdxjr7pQUpXU1JK+y1siJQmuK12xWk=; b=JDrSqvhduENdvfgO8Hs0LufG4bFHioY2NGqSL4pMsZERVhCetCBAb2mAv0zQB/io5X 8lGfiaNzgL8JQkizQ5MWeQkuO3bWjjOrCbiJ0ycMpq91ck/yQFfxW/vX+Qw9BpCMPlXs JTf+nJD5aO7Xh8SA3KxfRSO8EwtryX1ITUMaL9ZrqzmbAe4OBRfR5mMOAIn3yv42VufS FMrzwcxhGbs96iIWCkIFRxff6JO5QD7766jhPKzVsqACkWx4bCj8gm1fSMtviiSuQMZm 3v3aDlGtPYsl4eslQEHzXipclkcbYUbKwtbAfi4w2LM5tfBof3tKPI1pRRecXcGPT5vv 5ikg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.58.99 with SMTP id p3mr8147115oeq.23.1368235824922; Fri, 10 May 2013 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.130.139 with HTTP; Fri, 10 May 2013 18:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbdnnCiDSDt5CwPfRYx-BGgz8eoMUDa2J4xaWztHkCbe+w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbcfTjN5QFFuGm-P-rQMpAR3FGSC58WCy3qKn+29YCjn+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYiwNSzvrY1LF_Sex_82TSDwMbTvYqo7LyKfBAOu0j4pfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdqnH0JK-UaMiaR5rLvZo8txywEcXXSUXa_y95hrLC5yA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbd-VfTFYurZ-JEKjHKOeKvZCKoYLGMXf+0mi-_wbdKYqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgfu=rcji-bdxNPsE9KCE4T67+vN9b0iojnvycx5R-StA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnX=AemYGrBzWGX1VEUgKKrk+hR6YV0jg9qVMSdPiimBAA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFA1p16FHaSf7b1=mhe_Cb=ZqV1m0HVwkQNdW+pkJ0OkA9L-5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNdifoF3aqQLB-EZjYqL3O2_uNEmNJ_+zAktu9zapKmT7w@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcF3VXuhvP5StN9hHVj4K-2WMvBr37ur3iHmH-=2WAbHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgFccqU5-65mFPF_3i4OOROZQCdS+tEUeDMk4HP4JJX5Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcQMEhu9ciuTQoR1dRw3UiUB=E_AeMjaNrhFgMPmmi+EQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjFgJ28O5Jb58a5eodJMWe+CSe18Ow1wpETWJcjmedXRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbdnnCiDSDt5CwPfRYx-BGgz8eoMUDa2J4xaWztHkCbe+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 18:30:24 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfHEUsdqQaAg8-g6vLb=AikHQG4Y5BywJ2w1FQEon+LrQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d075850493c04dc673aff
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.664, 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 1UayeA-0000MB-Sx e374c91338426ae5c0250a8c655eae8b
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNfHEUsdqQaAg8-g6vLb=AikHQG4Y5BywJ2w1FQEon+LrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17945
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>

The memory needed for header interpretation will, for a decent
implementation, be at worst the sum of the size of the compression context
and the size of the receive buffer-- it will not expand once decompressed
unless a lot of useless copying is being done.

-=R


On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:00 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> I do not presume the Window to be static at all.  In fact, quite the
> >> opposite,  I expect it to be quite variable.  I do not want header
> frames
> >> that are beyond an endpoints ability to process at any given point in
> time.
> >> It's conceivable that if the widow size is 0, the receiver really
> doesn't
> >> want the sender to initiate any new requests or to send arbitrarily
> large
> >> blocks of headers.
> >
> > I don't get it. Then what does a halfway stance buy you? If you really
> want
> > to prevent them from sending data, say that headers are included in flow
> > control. If you're only shrinking the max frame size, but we can use a
> frame
> > continuation bit, or there's a lower-bound on the frame-size, then the
> > receiver isn't able to prevent the sender from sending arbitrary amounts
> of
> > header data, but it's just forcing the sender to break it up into smaller
> > frame sizes.
> >>
>
> It's not about preventing the data from being sent at all, it's about
> breaking it up into smaller, more manageable chunks that are easier to
> preempt and deal with incrementally.
>
> If an endpoint says that it's only capable of handling 10k of data at
> a time, whats the utility in sending a single frame containing 64k of
> compressed header data that could potentially expand significantly
> once decompressed?
>
> - James
>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> - James
> >> >>
> >> >> > I don't see any real benefits for limiting control frames to
> anything
> >> >> > having
> >> >> > to do with the window size as compared to sending a SETTING and
> >> >> > having the
> >> >> > default before there and having it completely decoupled from window
> >> >> > size,
> >> >> > and I do see a number of complications and ewws :/
> >> >> > -=R
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com
> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> While I love the idea of limiting frames to 65535B, I hate the
> idea
> >> >> >> of a
> >> >> >> continuation bit.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>     -Hasan
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Martin Thomson
> >> >> >> <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> On 10 May 2013 10:40, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
> >> >> >>> wrote:
> >> >> >>> > [...] are we going to move forward with the frame
> >> >> >>> > continuation bit?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I think that this was implicit in our decision to limit frames to
> >> >> >>> 65535 bytes (or less).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>