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

Re: #541: CONTINUATION

From: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:31:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+pLO_j6utBxp22QfNusV04K4zx4bxJXTi1UKFUELtAjSCArVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
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>
> 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."

If you are in the process of sending a large data frame, you cannot
respond to a PRIORITY frame that prioritizes a different stream and
begin to send data for that stream until the entire frame is flushed.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 17:00:18 UTC

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