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

Re: proposed WINDOW_UPDATE text for session flow control windows

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:52:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNd5bCpcVg7Z9Q=D1goYZ2keGnxPmy2G79O+h5K6bSa=cA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm afraid of simply sending a large window size, because I suspect that
simple implementations will mess it up for objects > 31 bits in size.
If we don't have a SETTINGS thing, then we're requiring flow control for
the first RT for any stream.

I like the flag solely because it is difficult to do by accident, unlike
using zero (which is technically fine otherwise)

The other thing to consider is when, if ever, one can transition from
flow-control disabled to requiring its use again.
Even if we don't allow this, it will require text explaining it.
-=R


On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 20 February 2013 13:49, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > By flags, do you mean SETTINGS thingies, or do you mean values in the
> flags
> > byte (I'm assuming SETTINGS thingies?)
>
> Either.  New settings are probably lower cost than flags, but they
> certainly aren't free.
>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 22:53:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 20 February 2013 22:53:06 GMT