IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP header compression: static table fit for QUIC (#904)

Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com> Fri, 27 April 2018 07:20 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 B5AD2126FB3 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 q7H60UyEZZ48 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out-3.smtp.github.com (out-3.smtp.github.com [192.30.252.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA5D9120725 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:20:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 00:20:15 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1524813615; bh=ZHg+aVy3iedNZ14gEM6liU9bu+l2Z+Uo+JR+2SffLPg=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=IXRqQE43giuWHzl+I0A0e0X9fg78aa1s3kqW3lzq7CGxatIRbHhpy0bCVyk58F2Rc rEEeQxL4XlTYx09fiWz+uCi2EUZK5BNScpFXQYbO+zc186shzyWkL9sNs6aQlJn9MS R5fp+avdwAGkhyHoHUt+ENlLCO2DMGT6NxI/Fybk=
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+0166e4ab0f110423a1bed452dc6bec051bb8a1168005be1892cf0000000116fa912f92a169ce1011dfe8@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/904/384887433@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/904@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/904@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP header compression: static table fit for QUIC (#904)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5ae2cf2f9c710_1e6a2aac9c8c4f605122b1"; 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/Ro2Wbpurp9X0O1IEfnma7OmGkek>
X-BeenThere: quic-issues@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 27 Apr 2018 07:20:19 -0000

I think the way HTTP/2 negotiates (or rather, unilaterally sends the configuration) is pretty cool. OTOH, as you have described, the issue with static table negotiation is that it needs to be negotiated rather than just sending the configuration to the peer.

I can understand the hesitation to running ALPN and protocol-specific negotiation at the same time.

However, I might argue that running all things parallel (for less connection establishment latency) is the spirit of QUIC. Transport negotiation, TLS handshake, 0-RTT, they are all done in parallel. Therefore, I would estimate that people would want to do the same for negotiating the parameters of the application layer protocols. I see static table negotiation being one of them.

Just my two cents.

-- 
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/904#issuecomment-384887433

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email