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: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:14:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXbtOm10VxbqfNaLrmkGTuf99AV9RhNTGq=iUGN80Y90w@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 27 February 2013 21:01, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
> * Is there a reason to disable stream flow control, but not session flow
> control? Feels weird to me.

Yeah, I didn't worry about that because I did see a case for disabling
flow control in the other direction (session only) and providing a
graduated mechanism [ off, streams only, streams and session ] seemed
less intuitive than [ streams: on/off, session: on/off ].  Now, if few
enough people care about that, it's easy to disable all at once and be
done with it.

> Nit: I don't want to bikeshed too much, but my preference is to call the
> shed DISABLE_FLOW_CONTROL instead of END_FLOW_CONTROL. But whatever.

Noted, I'll do that.  I had DISABLE originally, but I thought END
sounded properly final.  After all, there is no going back.
Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 05:15:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:10 UTC