W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: [touch@isi.edu: draft may be of interest]

From: <touch@isi.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:11:07 -0700
Message-Id: <199606141711.AA10740@ash.isi.edu>
To: touch@isi.edu, J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk
Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> From J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk Thu Jun 13 23:14:52 1996
>  
>  >P-HTTP is basically "IP over TCP" - given the necessary
>  >chunking, muxing, etc. I don't know why that isn't as frightening
>  >to anyone else...
> 
> um, no - not really - p-http gives you persistent VJCC - thus it is
> safer than current http practice for the net, as well as kinder to the
> kernel TCP state machine at browser and server ends....

Perhaps I can clarify.

HTTP/1.1 persistant connections needs to chunk and mux data at the
application layer, in order to prevent a postscript file URL retreival
from starving-out concurrent HTML URL retreivals, e.g. Which should get
a higher priority? Currently, this isn't an issue, but in the future,
we may need to do some scheduling and multilevel queuing and service 
discipline at the mux.

But we also need the multilevel queuing in the kernel.

How do the two interact, except badly???

Why do I want to do this at all at the application, if I have
to do it in the kernel later too?

Joe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu		    http://www.isi.edu/~touch/
ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM       http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/
USC / Research Assistant Prof.                http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
Received on Friday, 14 June 1996 10:30:15 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:32:03 EDT