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

Re: Large Frame Proposal - WINDOW UPDATE

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 21:35:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnV7kfn4N5qi=V7voN8XHzybCWEmbKCPREKBSgu3jaLAKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 July 2014 21:25, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> So it can be done with the SETTINGS, but would be a little more risky and a
> little more complex..... but hey the up side is that if you went to the
> effort to make it work, it would work for all peers without the need for
> them to understand Max Frame Size in an update...... hmmmm that almost
> convinces me.

I think that the arguments you've presented to the working group on
this general subject would support the idea that the setting is
sufficient.  After all, willingness to *use* the expanded space still
needs to come with careful moderation of its use.  It's not like this
is exclusively a problem with concurrency.  Many of the potential
problems, like being unable to send a timely WINDOW_UPDATE, exist even
with a single stream that contains too large frames.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 04:35:28 UTC

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