Re: Git Issues: PING

Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> Mon, 22 April 2013 19:46 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 746F821F9349 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:46:08 -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 icVBJYI2suBh for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69BCE21F9347 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:46:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UUMf9-0003Uw-Hx for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:44:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:44:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UUMf9-0003Uw-Hx@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jpinner@twitter.com>) id 1UUMf3-0003Sb-NK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:44:25 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jpinner@twitter.com>) id 1UUMf2-0006RN-FX for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 19:44:25 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id h1so1462238oag.3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=twitter.com; s=google; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=Okv4HQ6rqn6IXG4b5/Eo0sa+FkiUx2q8GaPZuIGbvQc=; b=nBWPcg6w+487Ov/lisG9VYGbbh86vvEpOFbV89ln8YxzGBJ2RxJ3ZJHBP/xJjDdAfl IgC5nVpGp0Kl4IrDpnaQX85zi9Q9fNy8oEr2Qtm6ZsL2S4+AUxc90SFGH9VpjiZ3yelW kFYb7PSOplx+j4L0D23IN1rw5J1ZkvWIt8SLY=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=Okv4HQ6rqn6IXG4b5/Eo0sa+FkiUx2q8GaPZuIGbvQc=; b=bbfoEzIz4R5zY7aDXiKMj/W2Xk/VrqassE29hM7fht8W/DxKNKDC2uFGresRxzQpAV iVBtqAzEymiiQDz4Aa9M1IKpuHIW2oMrzTejjtDqyfXXlhwUnvmYDdqc3N7Gss7vmoeV 2bHFi8U3Lx55oTEHxHAnOdfA8hM6tZMqoZasr0zOwIgIdrmMqCNHh9az87I0rIUjf1bh OCttUbEcPr62GLVFHZZIs0NLBuMsX9X96N7ac1WTm1fvauWYlp7VNBUBkve05pIOHPMc YuEbHLpr5UZSKjFq5YhHmVXN13QaTloaHFT8MReQHdLzs1HCmiojyBFCeSicDbFG62ar 1gfw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.15.169 with SMTP id y9mr2312005oec.1.1366659838247; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.129.197 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbcdGeBKfQke=NocROhow9kSuV4MOQvP4MMJrwzP7ip56Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABP7RbeTgHaHVuoJPD=LNgEij4_+k8KQg4ni6oDn=Cuw6qsCWg@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYhpOtHhH8kwHN3aK4=tT4LLdP+p6fTQuogWB9abBAhURw@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcdGeBKfQke=NocROhow9kSuV4MOQvP4MMJrwzP7ip56Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:43:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_hnzZ_o38jWXHK4h9VDTbRHwmcRgd7GzdWa2So2BW-wCQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?V2lsbGlhbSBDaGFuICjpmYjmmbrmmIwp?= <willchan@chromium.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01536d6c30169504daf84aae
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl3w4U8bSEHGlnCZzN3jScl08SUfCy1+7aEUdy4CHb6gYaTvWAinzB1jP28IuNlA9Rxplnl
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.44; envelope-from=jpinner@twitter.com; helo=mail-oa0-f44.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.100, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UUMf2-0006RN-FX 9bffcd5fd003b4217aeace8230ae998a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Git Issues: PING
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CA+pLO_hnzZ_o38jWXHK4h9VDTbRHwmcRgd7GzdWa2So2BW-wCQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/17474
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 would be cautious of giving semantic meaning to the payload, and an ID
larger than 4 bytes seems unnecessary.

I do like the introduction of the PONG flag and the subsequent removal of
the restrictions on the ID field, letting the peer send whatever index into
their stored context that they like.


On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:56 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> The main argument I've seen for allowing a payload is so that the PING
> sender can include a stronger correlation token than just the ID (a
> timestamp, for instance).
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 1:51 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
> <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > +jpinner who filed the issue
> >
> > Unless anyone comes up with a motivating reason to add arbitrary
> payloads,
> > let's just disallow them. This is what the SPDY/2 spec originally did
> > (
> http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-protocol/spdy-protocol-draft2#TOC-PING):
> > "Length: This frame is always 4 bytes long."
> >
> > Unless I missed a PING discussion elsewhere, it looks refactoring
> > accidentally introduced a semantic change. Let's fix that.
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:37 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Per https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/68 ...
> >>
> >> The question is: "In the current draft, the PING frame requires the
> >> server to resend an arbitrarily large payload.... Perhaps restrict the
> >> length of the PING frame to 0, allow any stream identifier in the
> >> header require the server to echo the identifier? ... I'm not sure
> >> what benefit being able to echo arbitrary contents provides."
> >>
> >> Placing a cap on the size of the Ping payload makes sense. Whether
> >> that cap should be strictly mandated by the spec or established via
> >> SETTINGS is an open question, however. Perhaps the spec ought to place
> >> a strict upper limit and allow recipients to optionally specify a more
> >> restrictive value via SETTINGS?
> >>
> >> - James
> >>
> >
>