IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Talk about concurrency in H3 vs. H2 (#3114)

Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com> Tue, 22 October 2019 02:03 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 E1FB5120ADD for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:03:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.382
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.382 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 fZMcNymTVFB2 for <quic-issues@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:03:28 -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 32B1512004C for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net (github-lowworker-943b171.ac4-iad.github.net [10.52.22.59]) by smtp.github.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72153960991 for <quic-issues@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=github.com; s=pf2014; t=1571709807; bh=arnWqOAUI5smuylZXFCdWqfvO6p1xw319KzwWWGnAA4=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=ofsVwZEZmMq66OFJuIuYeWDoGEl8l3n+ZwN88NDANUbcE4YNEYoYFGOhZYWNGvKir vgNl7EVbiElC7gRdhdA0M/EVABR32GdjfPn4jMbliEghrYmhmi357Tvvl2llpkbARL QKon1oAQkQ2yO5XWHTqiPn7YYPxQrwZbE0MjSztg=
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 19:03:27 -0700
From: Martin Thomson <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <reply+AFTOJK5FJJ4QBFUYP7D6MMF3XOK67EVBNHHB4UJDX4@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3114/review/304936676@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3114@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/pull/3114@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Talk about concurrency in H3 vs. H2 (#3114)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5dae636f62c75_2df93f85f46cd96411657"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: martinthomson
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/WIxwiqhoJjKp-4byBUgNnNwvxzM>
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: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:03:30 -0000

martinthomson requested changes on this pull request.

I think that this isn't quite right.  It makes an unstated assumption, namely that the transport maintains a fixed "active stream count" that it uses to increment the maximum stream ID.  The decision to increase the maximum stream identifier could be made at the same point in HTTP/3 as it is in HTTP/2 if the transport+HTTP stacks were to decide that.

I think that we can stop by saying that the state machine is different and that this might result in HTTP/3 streams being regarded as closed later than in HTTP/2.  This could reduce the effective stream concurrency if the number of streams is used in a similar way to decide the maximum stream ID.



-- 
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/pull/3114#pullrequestreview-304936676

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email