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

Re: HTTP/2 and TCP CWND

From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:33:27 +0200
Message-ID: <5170E537.3080609@cisco.com>
To: Wesley Eddy <wes@mti-systems.com>
CC: Nandita Dukkipati <nanditad@google.com>, 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 this one point:

On 4/19/13 6:08 AM, Wesley Eddy wrote:
>
>> * It's always arguable on how valid the CWND is... but then, this is
>> true of any starting condition. So the question really is: Is past value
>> from some XXX time ago less/more wrong on average than starting with an
>> arbitrary constant?
>
> It is a great research question, and very interesting.
>
> The things to look at are what the impact of being wrong on different
> granularities is, and what the likelihood of being wrong at different
> granularities is.

And just as a reminder, Cisco has an open Request for Proposals[1] for
all things HTTP2, of which we would consider this part.

Eliot

[1]
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/ac50/ac207/crc_new/university/RFP/rfp13077.html
Received on Friday, 19 April 2013 06:34:09 UTC

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