Network Working Group                                         O. Mazahir
Internet-Draft                                                 J. Padhye
Expires: June 11, 2013                                         Microsoft
                                                                 W. Chan
                                                                 R. Peon
                                                                R. Trace
                                                               S. Loreto
                                                           G. Montenegro
                                                        December 8, 2012

                  HTTP 2.0 Principles for Flow Control


   This document states the principles for flow control in HTTP 2.0.

Status of this Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 11, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   ( in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents

Mazahir, et al.           Expires June 11, 2013                 [Page 1]

Internet-Draft   Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0   December 2012

   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
   2.  Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0 Multiplexing  . . . . . 4
   3.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
   4.  References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.1.  Normative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
     4.2.  Informative References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Mazahir, et al.           Expires June 11, 2013                 [Page 2]

Internet-Draft   Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0   December 2012

1.  Introduction

   HTTP/2.0 introduces multiplexed streams over a given TCP connection.
   In HTTP 1.X, there is no interleaving of Request/Response pairs.
   Thus, any flow control issues are mostly left to the underlying TCP
   implementation.  In HTTP 2.0, each Request/Response pair uses a
   separate stream, sharing the same TCP connection with other such
   pairs over different streams.  All such streams will be vying for a
   common underlying resource of a single TCP connection.  Given that
   this interaction among all the streams is not visible to the TCP
   implementation, handling the interaction among them has to be solved
   at the HTTP 2.0 multiplexing layer.  There are issues of
   prioritization, head-of-line blocking and flow control.  Perhaps the
   most complex aspect is that of flow control.  It may be that flow
   control for HTTP 2.0 multiplexing will follow a path similar to what
   TCP's complex dynamics have followed throughout the years.  In
   particular, TCP congestion control has seen a constant progress of
   improved specifications based on measurements and research of the
   networking community.  What the TCP community recognized early on was
   that this was a hard problem.  Thus, the best course of action was to
   agree on a minimal set of rules or principles (e.g., TCP
   "friendliness").  Many TCP congestion control algorithms are then
   possible as a (mostly) local implementation issue giving rise to TCP
   Reno, Tahoe, Vegas, CTCP, and many more.

   Flow control for HTTP 2.0 multiplexing over TCP is also a complex
   issue.  This document proposes (1) a set of principles aimed at
   preventing egregious behavior, while allowing for future and ongoing
   improvement of flow control algorithms, and (2) a simple flow control
   algorithm that could be implemented in the absence of better schemes
   (TBD).  Other flow control algorithms with subsequent improvements
   should be specified in separate documents without encumbering nor
   delaying the base HTTP 2.0 specification.  This is similar to how the
   myriad TCP congestion algorithms published so far have been specified
   separately from the base TCP documents.

   The goal of this document is to propose additional text to the
   HTTP/2.0 specification.  The starting point for HTTP/2.0, the SPDY
   [I-D.mbelshe-httpbis-spdy] protocol, does not have much language with
   respect to flow control.  Hence, the text below is offered as a new
   section or sections within the HTTP/2.0 document.

Mazahir, et al.           Expires June 11, 2013                 [Page 3]

Internet-Draft   Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0   December 2012

2.  Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0 Multiplexing

   Flow control for Multiplexing in HTTP 2.0 must follow these

   1.  Flow control is hop by hop (where "hop" means an HTTP 2.0 hop),
       and not end-to-end.

   2.  Flow control is based on window update messages.  It is
       essentially a credit-based scheme.

   3.  Flow control is directional and is determined by the receiver.
       Flow control MAY be declared by the receiver and MUST be heeded
       by the sender.  For example, a client, a server or a proxy (in
       their role as a "receiver") independently advertise their flow
       control preference.  The other side when operating as a "sender"
       must heed that preference.

   4.  Flow control in the direction towards the receiver can be OFF or
       ON as determined by the receiver.  It is OFF if no flow control
       is advertised by the receiver, or if the receiver declares
       "infinite" credit to the sender.

   5.  HTTP 2.0 should only standardize the format of the window update
       message and its semantics.  In particular, the algorithms used by
       the receiver to decide when to send window update messages, and
       how much to update the window by, are not mandated in the spec.
       The draft should, however, provide some illustrative examples.

   NOTE: Whether flow control operates on a per-stream basis, on a per-
   session (per-TCP connection) basis or on both a per-stream and a per-
   session basis is TBD.

   The spec will not define the algorithms the sender will use to manage
   priorities among streams and to minimize head of the line blocking.
   This is included for completeness, but is essentially independent of

Mazahir, et al.           Expires June 11, 2013                 [Page 4]

Internet-Draft   Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0   December 2012

3.  Acknowledgements

   This document was produced using the xml2rfc tool [RFC2629].

Mazahir, et al.           Expires June 11, 2013                 [Page 5]

Internet-Draft   Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0   December 2012

4.  References

4.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2616]  Fielding, R., Gettys, J., Mogul, J., Frystyk, H.,
              Masinter, L., Leach, P., and T. Berners-Lee, "Hypertext
              Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.1", RFC 2616, June 1999.

              Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p1-messaging-21 (work in progress),
              October 2012.

              Fielding, R. and J. Reschke, "Hypertext Transfer Protocol
              (HTTP/1.1): Semantics and Content",
              draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-21 (work in progress),
              October 2012.

4.2.  Informative References

   [RFC2629]  Rose, M., "Writing I-Ds and RFCs using XML", RFC 2629,
              June 1999.

   [RFC6455]  Fette, I. and A. Melnikov, "The WebSocket Protocol",
              RFC 6455, December 2011.

              Belshe, M. and R. Peon, "SPDY Protocol",
              draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 (work in progress),
              February 2012.

              Trace, R., Foresti, A., Singhal, S., Mazahir, O., Nielsen,
              H., Raymor, B., Rao, R., and G. Montenegro, "HTTP Speed+
              Mobility", draft-montenegro-httpbis-speed-mobility-02
              (work in progress), June 2012.

              Tarreau, W., Jeffries, A., and A. Croy, "Proposal for a
              Network-Friendly HTTP Upgrade",
              draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00 (work in
              progress), March 2012.

Mazahir, et al.           Expires June 11, 2013                 [Page 6]

Internet-Draft   Principles for Flow Control in HTTP 2.0   December 2012

Authors' Addresses

   Osama Mazahir


   Jitu Padhye


   William Chan


   Roberto Peon


   Rob Trace


   Salvatore Loreto


   Gabriel Montenegro


Mazahir, et al.           Expires June 11, 2013                 [Page 7]