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

Re: HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:41:02 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iccrg@irtf.org
Message-Id: <0F5D3725-8C49-41B8-B581-8F6AAD940DC6@mnot.net>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>

We're planning a joint session with Transport area folks in Berlin, to discuss things just like this; ICCRG folks are of course welcome to come along.


On 28/05/2013, at 7:31 PM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:

> I can't believe that this keeps happening to me (being one of the chairs of ICCRG) - very sorry, everyone! Here's a fix, using the correct address for ICCRG!
> Cheers,
> Michael
> On 28. mai 2013, at 11:25, Michael Welzl wrote:
>> (including ICCRG because folks there might be interested)
>> Hi,
>> I just joined the list. While I did look at some old presentations from minutes and the list archive, I might have missed an answer to the question I'm asking - my apologies in this case!
>> Here it goes: here, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-02#section-3.7.4
>> various values are defined, like an estimate of the upload bandwidth, download bandwidth, the RTT, the initial window and so forth.
>> I wonder, has it been discussed whether these things are useful and/or appropriate?
>> I have only seen a thread related to SETTINGS_CURRENT_CWND, but what about all the other stuff (values 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)? This smells like a feedback channel for app-layer congestion control, is this the plan  (of, ahem, the whole HTTPBIS group) ?    :-)
>> Thanks, cheers,
>> Michael

Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 28 May 2013 10:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:13 UTC