W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND

From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:59:31 +0000
To: "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
CC: Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>, Jitu Padhye <padhye@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, "Brian Raymor (MS OPEN TECH)" <Brian.Raymor@microsoft.com>, Rob Trace <Rob.Trace@microsoft.com>, Dave Thaler <dthaler@microsoft.com>, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@skype.net>, Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
Message-ID: <DF8F6DB7E5D58B408041AE4D927B2F48CBB8940D@CINURCNA14.e2k.ad.ge.com>
It appears to me that the chief concern is in regards to HTTP/2's use of a
single flow vs. HTTP/1's use of multiple flows.  I fail to see how
changing CWND is going to make a difference (except for a beginning,
potentially nasty, burst) since, if the flows are sharing the same
end-to-end paths, they will still be competing and will steady-state to
"equal" CWND's.


Further, this is not specific to HTTP/2.  There are plenty of other
applications out there using TCP that have suffered from HTTP/1's use of
multiple simultaneous flows.  I fail to see how HTTP/2 is in a better
situation to correct that issue than any other application or, more
importantly, than the appropriate layer (4) or the offender (HTTP/1).

Am I missing something, or is the concern really that some folks are
looking for a way to throttle or compete with HTTP/1 flows?

- Robby
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2013 15:00:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:12 UTC