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

Re: Framing and control-frame continuations

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 01:05:26 +0900
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNr_HJsSG3--GqG1Z3eQDGdjXwPUaFzd8CqpY8KZbx1xHg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>wrote:

> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> --------
> In message <
> CAOdDvNqKxMuzvEC+p+ooZOsjUZ5Wd5V0YXrdbPHPTdFaWK_mmg@mail.gmail.com>
> , Patrick McManus writes:
>
> >[...] but it still represents 500ms of serialization time on a 1mb/s
> >network..
>
> Just because you _can_ send longer frames, doesn't mean that it is
> a good idea to do so.
>
> However, enforcing QoS by restricting frame-lengths is bad architecture,
> when HTTP is being used for a lot of bulk applications as well.
>
>
imo, I've made a quantifiable responsiveness argument but you haven't made
an overhead argument that shows a problem for bulk applications.
Received on Thursday, 7 February 2013 16:05:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 February 2013 16:06:04 GMT