Re: [hybi] Framing Take VI (a compromise proposal)

Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com> Fri, 13 August 2010 21:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ifette@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C2E3A67A2 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.288, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7KkFZoQm8+wV for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C29223A6852 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7DLKiqH001813 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:46 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1281734446; bh=Meoy3dNAAFp7AjUrp+E/4HCHMF0=; h=MIME-Version:Reply-To:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: Subject:From:To:Cc:Content-Type; b=mX34KKyVz5ICYGe93BrUHsO2xyu539INyE+9o5krl0/wl35NQ7x2ydVUVBLhLYPPb cPW/MaZziytSNgkooTIZQ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date: message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=NGL+b2eCN0s7PWgRMniy/hTWB7KgGa1mjknjytBo5GGJZB/BrcUeL4EBq8B53roTW qx8KVHUQIUYJ/FoF+dAzw==
Received: from yws5 (yws5.prod.google.com [10.192.19.5]) by wpaz17.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7DLKd5B020760 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:43 -0700
Received: by yws5 with SMTP id 5so96611yws.34 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.32.20 with SMTP id f20mr2612295ybf.320.1281734443026; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.150.67.19 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimJOGWgV6rx5JJYSJMC26OzQzskzVtkYz0L_EAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=TBXO_Cbb+P+e2BVfx69shkf8E1-9ywDh_Y+Kz@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTimJOGWgV6rx5JJYSJMC26OzQzskzVtkYz0L_EAg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 14:20:42 -0700
Message-ID: <AANLkTim5e0T3wLOnpFXpKtKtg1zAaHtzRUxgYhfCQNOe@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)" <ifette@google.com>
To: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd2da582c48f3048dbb0e1b"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Framing Take VI (a compromise proposal)
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ifette@google.com
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:20:13 -0000

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:

> 2010/8/12 Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ) <ifette@google.com>:
> >
> > That said, here's the proposal:
>
> This seems overly complex. In particular:
>
>  - I don't see the need for explicit extension lengths.
>
>
If you don't want to use any extensions, which I assume you don't, then set
EXT=0 and you don't have to set any extension lengths. Given that you don't
seem to want to use extensions, I'm not sure why you seem to have a
preference for how extension data is stated.


>  - I don't see what having both a short length and a long length gets
> us. Saving 7 bytes seems like a very minimal gain, especially when
> considered in the context of the rest of the header and the IP and TCP
> overhead.
>
>
An alternate would be to use a variable length. I really don't care that
much.


>  - Supporting fragmentation today is premature. We have no experience
> with how people use this protocol, we shouldn't be adding such
> features yet. Six months from now, sure, once we can quantify what it
> is people actually need.
>
>
This point has been argued extensively enough on the list that I don't think
anything I say here is going to be new.


>  - I don't see why we would need to flag fragmentation frames using
> reserved bits rather than just using the frame type byte mechanic.
> Just define four frame types for text and four frame types for binary
> when we add binary (not fragmented, fragment start, fragment middle,
> fragment end).
>
> --
> Ian Hickson
>