Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 03 May 2013 17:21 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 9D43921F973A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 r2rbWW9f+RyD for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7696321F9B42 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 09:53:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UYJDy-0008RI-AK for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:52:46 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:52:46 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UYJDy-0008RI-AK@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UYJDo-0008QY-CY for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:52:36 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1UYJDn-0007F6-Mv for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 16:52:36 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f44.google.com with SMTP id z12so1763506wgg.11 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Fri, 03 May 2013 09:52:09 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Se26mflTr4FfpG2lqjchI1VtftC7wFGxqyIQdpoPqQ8=; b=faAp9Yq9rogW1URk85QcuP6HP19ZesxAmrRDTJsD81ZBFMSXJbE6H3zb6neAvM9vRZ K7pP3OmLmX4E+HAN//4+wE1zb9rsLyP1fzV8iASzMrn5dVMjOCdGqMlmLMjflhQNrsQS D9WrqoDnrx3jnh5+SiN+225H/jhEBHAhb6n9jqgyOr9dN5DHKWgOllYWzhM9ywOc/xC+ CowU418obqbQih2yfiHgsmjKtg7YBddzsjjJ/T3AiXIY4LgaiOIer1vGd1uABdU3JK2Z jP91y2upnUvHvpoRkr4myLl4DC2Q/Gd3K9jGh9A4Uy9Id5hErUxe8nT0EBNKeICJU0aF 4GHA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.14.5 with SMTP id l5mr16035789wic.32.1367599929551; Fri, 03 May 2013 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.33.102 with HTTP; Fri, 3 May 2013 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYj81k1dK-LV+=h-yto4WEpVWFaRnCQZ+h55mipYCnQeYw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbdBe-Xkx+CMvpN=_oNAqm6SyLyL+XNHRUKSqn8mjSDw1Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgCiyWerT0tUUVKcbNPqdTGuXHd_MG59DjcUsEWst5t7g@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVdU=cZ53Bqg5Un=E80NMpcgYO37DVmwUFW0O-i7SNf8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhz64FsEGgGhx91RfWwuPPxWdAkesOV-bmqWVWE7ZxdjA@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcKQkn1o4WZscwNmSmm6YzqE_TKxPr4jnozNdaVqpZ7=A@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhF6rAZoYEaz4aJO6xawaJxzxGt=Bkg4H9eBOP-LBSRmQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNezQzxdZEJY_2_0h_TR2pBbVsGyGBhQhKcm-65pt6S8rQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbevS8M0q9OxzPncqY_gE34q5-ymdg2hOX2SQgSUNkhzsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjAbuUqz9RdO+-p3a4EsyuS=Gv0rS-U-Vh+ZCjtDjFy6w@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNec2LLZMjtGhSX-1q8qg66WtBoM5K0yMrs5m4VKXb5OVg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYgAT64jj=Am06MsA02A+eAcDrVbbgb4opO37bnMkWTPfg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7Rbdgz=kRZPfjHK5UUfieq8uz=ToQZjFt1-+s9scj1CogmA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYjSjFKSdbj=QBLn0T4ufhzF1hUY=O=Qa2dfnkTzMXF0bg@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbejssYWH+nEumVX__+4TnE1ec8e1YXeY8kqWF+AgszTrg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYiRVxM78Dr+eh9ksVvW_9=S01mHxt_Wr+SyaVECmc0e-g@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbexX0T=yYKPeKFeGEnzMAcO7fAifZh6LfLCOngLDNQHUA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUeicCNUa70GW7Vv9-bbwLPiPM=2-_t28Qz5o6DT0jF8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbfbmTqFHPkRvj2K6iZ=Oo7MsT3hD9Y33fmtU9HOLoDmUA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYj81k1dK-LV+=h-yto4WEpVWFaRnCQZ+h55mipYCnQeYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2013 09:52:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVEy7LPU2sUrKVFTLpEVP4RcWnbdgs1oRvmNFujZGQBOg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.44; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.684, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UYJDn-0007F6-Mv 80c9caeccdb2f1d0283d17478270a8e1
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVEy7LPU2sUrKVFTLpEVP4RcWnbdgs1oRvmNFujZGQBOg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17800
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 3 May 2013 09:44, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>; wrote:
> I'd like server folks to chime in, but doing this makes me feel a bit
> nervous. I feel this effectively disables the directional concurrent streams
> limit. The bidirectional full-close essentially acts like an ACK, so
> removing it might result in an unbounded number of streams.

I think that I know what you mean here, but can you try to expand a
little?  Do you refer to the possible gap between close on the
initiating direction and the first frame on the responding direction;
a gap that might cause the stream to escape accounting?  I think that
is a tractable problem - any unbounded-ness is under the control of
the initiating peer.