Re: draft-ietf-quic-http-29, "1.1. Prior versions of HTTP"

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 18 June 2020 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E923A1125 for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:19:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=XmeHg3nQ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=I8hYC837
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 nxR-mOeEegwV for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D6FA3A111C for <quic@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 16:19:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 045DC5C0163; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:19:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:19:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm3; bh=m l49vMo98qUlevgPEIOsfPoBc88j18T39UpnYFstZrk=; b=XmeHg3nQaOZCyQTQp INfGlWvOPv8T/xIkFfgDN9rI6NV5YDDyqnHb3aRE4+3PbrJQXxuS28+pCzUnBwm0 UsPc+z0mL5DMUCqk9SRaOC+Rtb7y6trW4gWxOW6dirfv0o7sBI9OAA1ATadCj1mw 82imBMshrGR9medMRHA9JBExOf0P74KBDWvgVQH4yyTVWZ2g0/EJsDusPkx5lqkY emLhegm4VvFYBhMglTn8W6OONFzyPb6dsrHM9ABcF+zg2F0u3IUG//hnWTkw9nh6 ytiLnEtIAT/N01IPolbfVla/NHUYHQH67wRiMvUwGv/B4HjFlKC8LINe/4btJP1b uzd3A==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=ml49vMo98qUlevgPEIOsfPoBc88j18T39UpnYFstZ rk=; b=I8hYC8378pLCcXqzD1Os/pMX25NgY5gOxlNL0vFKx7xBQGMm2d5PMGkju WUBJ3yvKYGzyPKVyg3Yu7QZ1MxXyOa0sEvFfi5fDwP9BeHL73fVkiScgDs6tESIm fBQHO5VvEqj4xOVS66+FODUb5fyp+6reV6WQlcMDoVXnBOCHImEt1aOXwey4Low0 j67kk5wR22Qv+cAxm/PuSHv4dRPgha01NBVneJbNYd2DDHgCKGNRCs7JAO/3UBFs 2bxraCULTt+in1yqJWolFzq4LCOZW199lpzd1auPi6ch08uNBedl8OTGME5MlJXj yr3H0SR1DIm8rbcM0TkxL3RpqWcWA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:mfbrXuF66e7LUP2eF3wgp9yF64c0HqnIMiBThoLVOEaBAKUMM9QoYQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduhedrudejhedgvdduucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurheptggguffhjgffgffkfhfvofesthhqmhdthhdtvdenucfhrhhomhepofgrrhhk ucfpohhtthhinhhghhgrmhcuoehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeevffffhfduteevvefhueffieegtdeutdehffeltefffedttdeggeejheeiueet teenucffohhmrghinhepmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecukfhppeduudelrddujedrudehkedrvd ehudenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehm nhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvght
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:mfbrXvWTMSv8l6EtdbrO21PyWwK-_tryRRVOk-_I4flt7ii4OdyEZA> <xmx:mfbrXoJ1RsKbPU355cvsTSRiyo_4c-pqHtgk0qm1jRRquF-pnizCNw> <xmx:mfbrXoFATlrnIkCnKCGcHUFUGaY6c3T8dfVLcBGCiZmRGNNJkPvaOQ> <xmx:m_brXvd6IstVFozbTrVIK2NT6TnjJPmyBCig50BNIUAEQhQWtH1H9g>
Received: from macbook-air.mnot.net (119-17-158-251.77119e.mel.static.aussiebb.net [119.17.158.251]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B55563061CB6; Thu, 18 Jun 2020 19:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Subject: Re: draft-ietf-quic-http-29, "1.1. Prior versions of HTTP"
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <8c747b59-1672-4ccb-dfce-0914e74c504f@gmx.de>
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:19:48 +1000
Cc: quic@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9B975808-6BF3-491C-8E32-C475824B0E9A@mnot.net>
References: <8c747b59-1672-4ccb-dfce-0914e74c504f@gmx.de>
To: "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/TmD4CppstBUqF4KYuQCLMSyIQvA>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 23:20:00 -0000

My .02 -

I think we need to balance between being correct and over-complicating the text here. In *theory*, Julian is correct; in wide practice, pipelining isn't used because of the limitations it has, as well as implementation / interop issues.

How about something like:

"Because of limitations in how HTTP exchanges are mapped onto TCP connections in HTTP/1.1, multiple parallel connections are often used..."

?

Cheers,


> On 12 Jun 2020, at 9:48 pm, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
>> HTTP/1.1 [HTTP11] is a TCP mapping which uses whitespace-delimited text fields to convey HTTP messages. While these exchanges are human-readable, using whitespace for message formatting leads to parsing complexity and motivates tolerance of variant behavior. Because each connection can transfer only a single HTTP request or response at a time in each direction, multiple parallel TCP connections are often used, reducing the ability of the congestion controller to effectively manage traffic between endpoints.
> 
> Isn't that a bit misleading, as at least in theory HTTP/1.1 supports
> pipelining?
> 
> BEst regards, Julian
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/