W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2014

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 23:09:49 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <78711.1404774589@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABkgnnXvvHRBCH3F3xV=dE2y5ZY7JJRPf+qgwwjk9YS+8eCONw@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson w
rites:
>On 7 July 2014 15:57, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

>> What if you only want to pamper that one video-stream or conversely,
>> only want to handicap that background upload ?
>
>Flow control perhaps?

Using the per-stream window to restrict frame size costs you one
RTT per frame.

It would certainly work for penalizing a stream but not for pampering
one with more throughput.

>> I think per-stream settings are missing in the current draft
>
>Whether you agree or not, that is entirely intentional.

Intentional is neither a synomym for smart nor correct :-)

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 23:10:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC