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

Re: Is the ability to disable flow control really needed?

From: Fred Akalin <akalin@google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 18:26:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CANUYc_R9jk00cb4+0TRCwHa+nb9_sXiKCDykTon0sHLsXxJKOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Cc: William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I feel like since clients have to implement flow control anyway (to respect
the server window) that if we give clear instructions on how to
"effectively" disable flow control (send INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE to max value,
send WINDOW_UPDATE frame for max value - 64KB), perhaps replacing the
existing section talking about the flag, that they'll do the right thing.

I feel like if a client is naive enough, it might even forget to set the
DISABLE_FLOW_CONTROL flag, anyway. There's only so much we can do!

-- Fred

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com> wrote:

> You could do that:
>
> Send an INITIAL_WINDOW_SIZE setting to the max value, but that won't
> effect the session window, so for that you'd have to send a WINDOW_UPDATE
> frame that's set to max value - 64kB, and then you can send subsequent
> frames after half-consumed.
>
> I'm worried that naive clients won't do anything but use the default
> values. What do the client guys think?
>
>
Received on Saturday, 22 June 2013 01:27:26 UTC

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