W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2012

Re: new version of Flow Control Principles

From: Jonathan Ballard <dzonatas@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:59:41 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAPAK-7f+DcBKJK_J3iEazYcr6=s4YQoKGXNF3Pb-eXC25LMtA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>
Cc: "draft-montenegro-httpbis-http2-fc-principles@tools.ietf.org" <draft-montenegro-httpbis-http2-fc-principles@tools.ietf.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
For wireless, an algorithm may provide semantic value. On the wire, that
value, or flow, is already present. I would like to say, replace SPDY's
Push/Pull semantic flow with credit and debit accounting. I thought we
already understood balances and currencies.

One sample is Raspberry PI FTP box that runs on solar power. It appears
wasteful not to match power units to credit/debit the flow; when, we can
avoid energy demands spent on extra algorithms that achieve the same. Power
is sent over USB, so that is orthogonal to power over Ethernet. The
blackbox in this sample is the batteries. I can think of many explorations
projects to fine tune such accounting.

My opinion, credit-only numbers lead to more permanent registries as trust
tokens develop. That means the blackbox converts into greybox, which may
not be desired at all. That means more resistance to SPDY.

On Thursday, December 13, 2012, Gabriel Montenegro wrote:

>  ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Jonathan Ballard [mailto:dzonatas@gmail.com <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'dzonatas@gmail.com');>]
> *…*****
>
> ** **
>
> After I read it the question that was left was, "where is the debit rule?"
> If that question doesn't make sense then maybe "credit" isn't the real
> number word for flow control.
>
> Gab> Not sure I understand the comment. Could this be related to Eliot’s
> comment that the algorithm is clearly in the hands of the receiver? All the
> sender has to do to debit towards any available credit is to send as much
> of that credit as he needs to send. The actual over-the-wire(less)
> transmission dynamics, of course, are in the hands of the underlying TCP
> implementation (which would presumably heed congestion control rules, but
> that is opaque to HTTP 2.0).****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,Gabriel****
>
Received on Thursday, 13 December 2012 21:00:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 13 December 2012 21:00:12 GMT