Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:59:42 -0800
From: Kazuho Oku <notifications@github.com>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts
 <reply+AFTOJK64HJ6KIHFEKK6OA2V35BM75EVBNHHB64UA7U@reply.github.com>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <base-drafts@noreply.github.com>
Cc: Subscribed <subscribed@noreply.github.com>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3273/557949331@github.com>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3273@github.com>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3273@github.com>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] HTTP/3 references QUIC Stream IDs directly, 
 allowing illegal references (#3273)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="--==_mimepart_5ddb277e650ed_9e33fb7698cd95c106618c";
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic-issues/egMtAMsVBHlPJh7jRuELGLFPVXE>


----==_mimepart_5ddb277e650ed_9e33fb7698cd95c106618c
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

While I agree that such a design is possible, I am in favor of using stream IDs as they are, because that is what we have done in HTTP/2.

To be precise, HTTP/2 has stream 0 (which is used for transmitting control messages), odd-numbered streams (for carrying requests), even-numbered streams (for carrying pushed requests).

To paraphrase, we have had these ID holes in HTTP/2, and we haven't had issues (I assume). We've already built our infrastructure around this design, for example, we simply log the stream ID and hope that that would be sufficient to identify the request, regardless of it being one initiated by the client or one being pushed by the server.

Introducing the concept of "request ID" would be a departure from this design in HTTP/2. As there would be a different number space for pushed requests, we'd be required to change the logging structure to convey a tuple of request-type and request-ID. While that is not impossible, I am not sure if that change is worth the cost.

-- 
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/3273#issuecomment-557949331
----==_mimepart_5ddb277e650ed_9e33fb7698cd95c106618c
Content-Type: text/html;
 charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<p>While I agree that such a design is possible, I am in favor of using stream IDs as they are, because that is what we have done in HTTP/2.</p>
<p>To be precise, HTTP/2 has stream 0 (which is used for transmitting control messages), odd-numbered streams (for carrying requests), even-numbered streams (for carrying pushed requests).</p>
<p>To paraphrase, we have had these ID holes in HTTP/2, and we haven't had issues (I assume). We've already built our infrastructure around this design, for example, we simply log the stream ID and hope that that would be sufficient to identify the request, regardless of it being one initiated by the client or one being pushed by the server.</p>
<p>Introducing the concept of "request ID" would be a departure from this design in HTTP/2. As there would be a different number space for pushed requests, we'd be required to change the logging structure to convey a tuple of request-type and request-ID. While that is not impossible, I am not sure if that change is worth the cost.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">&mdash;<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3273?email_source=notifications&amp;email_token=AFTOJKZI4TO7FF6YOBY6CUDQVMPP5A5CNFSM4JQ3RSM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEFA2DEY#issuecomment-557949331">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFTOJK7I55S3HU5O6IXWVCTQVMPP5ANCNFSM4JQ3RSMQ">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AFTOJK6QVEY3M527FXFGQYLQVMPP5A5CNFSM4JQ3RSM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEFA2DEY.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3273?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJKZI4TO7FF6YOBY6CUDQVMPP5A5CNFSM4JQ3RSM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEFA2DEY#issuecomment-557949331",
"url": "https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/issues/3273?email_source=notifications\u0026email_token=AFTOJKZI4TO7FF6YOBY6CUDQVMPP5A5CNFSM4JQ3RSM2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEFA2DEY#issuecomment-557949331",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>
----==_mimepart_5ddb277e650ed_9e33fb7698cd95c106618c--