- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:41:02 +1000
- To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
- Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iccrg@irtf.org
:) 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. Cheers, 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