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

Re: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND

From: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 12:48:46 -0400
Message-ID: <516ED26E.5010608@mti-systems.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
CC: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, Gabriel Montenegro <Gabriel.Montenegro@microsoft.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.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>, "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>, Martin Stiemerling <martin.stiemerling@neclab.eu>
On 4/16/2013 9:27 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
> 
> On 4/16/13 3:45 AM, Patrick McManus wrote:
> 
>> Part of what you inject is traditional L4 information (what was our
>> CWND before) which is much more interesting than a constant,
> 
> Much more interesting.  That much we agree on.  Whether it is
> information or misinformation is the real question.
> 


It's definitely misinformation given the dynamic nature of the
CWND variable in TCP.  This is not a path property like MTU that
can be thought of as relatively static, and it can change on short
timescales with high granularity.


-- 
Wes Eddy
MTI Systems
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 16:49:18 UTC

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