- From: <touch@isi.edu>
- Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 10:11:07 -0700
- To: touch@isi.edu, J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk
- Cc: ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu, masinter@parc.xerox.com, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> From J.Crowcroft@cs.ucl.ac.uk Thu Jun 13 23:14:52 1996 > > >P-HTTP is basically "IP over TCP" - given the necessary > >chunking, muxing, etc. I don't know why that isn't as frightening > >to anyone else... > > um, no - not really - p-http gives you persistent VJCC - thus it is > safer than current http practice for the net, as well as kinder to the > kernel TCP state machine at browser and server ends.... Perhaps I can clarify. HTTP/1.1 persistant connections needs to chunk and mux data at the application layer, in order to prevent a postscript file URL retreival from starving-out concurrent HTML URL retreivals, e.g. Which should get a higher priority? Currently, this isn't an issue, but in the future, we may need to do some scheduling and multilevel queuing and service discipline at the mux. But we also need the multilevel queuing in the kernel. How do the two interact, except badly??? Why do I want to do this at all at the application, if I have to do it in the kernel later too? Joe ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Touch - touch@isi.edu http://www.isi.edu/~touch/ ISI / Project Leader, ATOMIC-2, LSAM http://www.isi.edu/atomic2/ USC / Research Assistant Prof. http://www.isi.edu/lsam/
Received on Friday, 14 June 1996 10:30:15 UTC