IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Placeholder limits make for awkward clients (#2734)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 31 May 2019 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@github.com>
X-Original-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2631200D6 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.423
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_32=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.415, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=github.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ro_nvXoIL-BM for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:28:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-5.smtp.github.com (out-5.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 82602120088 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 22:28:55 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1559280535; bh=W9lwTSU2ocZWOMj4RxdKxj3uA+IejF4GcaMY/Uj/n+s=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=U/KCcOpF6Acv/y7NYnIGTwAK6SkNOqW2ruIVPa3GxIYnQRll2Bhzgf96okvMIFNIO /x2SeD4NWLXJQ1l5pcgl1xo9lsrnZf9Fezp6E5WOzl0vpS2WkdmbtWqlfJdIJ1eKtR qAELfvVzfDAk1D62uWmZq7R7aRyTkko9N8pD4M/E=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK2TOZDCBTWMPP5LJDF27XXBPEVBNHHBVHOH2Q@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2734/497580811@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2734@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2734@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Placeholder limits make for awkward clients (#2734)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5cf0bb973274a_13293fb607ccd95c512459"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: kazuho
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
X-GitHub-Recipient-Address: quic-issues@ietf.org
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/JFK4HY5_HTGDfDxOAUc7mKjl1PY>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <quic-issues.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic-issues/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic-issues@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic-issues>, <mailto:quic-issues-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2019 05:28:59 -0000

@afrind I think there are three choices:
* a) require some servers to lie (send non-zero SETTINGS_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS even though they do not respect placeholders)
* b) require all clients to build different trees based on the value of SETTINGS_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS
* c) let the clients send placeholders out of the server's advertised range

I do not think _a_ is a good idea, because we'd be losing some signal. _b_ is what we have now, but seems like an unnecessary complexity considering the fact that some servers might still ignore placeholders (or the priority tree as a whole). To me _c_ seems to be a good middle ground. Clients that want to respect SETTINGS_NUM_PLACEHOLDERS can do so, but that becomes an option. Hence #2761.

-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2734#issuecomment-497580811

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email