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

Re: moving forward on draft-lear-httpbis-svcinfo-rr

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:33:47 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbc2xuS8CWnNHmBrgdW6pSnbUcna9uRXHGbUQ0PXK842dQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I suspect that several of the settings (compression state, flow control,
etc) are simply going to be too dynamic for us to rely on DNS.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> It will in certain use-cases, e.g. restarting a browser with many open
> tabs, using a webapp or native application accessing a remote site, or when
> a service is experiencing heavy load (it may decrease the max compression
> state size), etc.
> -=R
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> On 2/5/13 10:06 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
>> I don't remember BDP being one of these, though we did have discussion
>> that talked about BDP in relation to some of the settings.
>> These were more along the lines of max-concurrent-streams,
>> max-compressor-state-size, and various other HTTP/2 specific settings that
>> the client should know about/respect.
>> Ok, next question: given that we're mandating a settings frame as part of
>> connection initialization (at least I think we agreed on that), does
>> putting this stuff in DNS save anything?
>> Eliot
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 21:34:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC