- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:40:51 +0000
- To: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
- cc: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>, Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CA+pLO_j6utBxp22QfNusV04K4zx4bxJXTi1UKFUELtAjSCArVQ@mail.gmail.com>, Jeff Pinner writ es: >> It is not the size of the frame that hurts multiplexing, it is the >> amount of time it takes to move it, also known as "bandwidth". > >It's not that large frames hurt multiplexing necessarily, it's that it >hurts "responsiveness." I assumed that was TT meant by "multiplexing". The point here is that nobody forces TT to neither send nor receive frames larger than 16K and that he should extend the same courtesy to people who want to do so. -- 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 Tuesday, 8 July 2014 16:59:52 UTC