- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:08:35 -0700
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: ChanWilliam(ιζΊζ) <willchan@chromium.org>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 21:09:02 UTC
It does not attempt to solve the core problem completely. If anything it just pushes it down the road a bit. As currently defined, servers will top out quickly on the number of streams they can push. With the revised scheme I proposed, we would give the recipient more control over the decision making process. A server will run up to the limits just as fast, but the recipient could allow the server to keep right on going if it wishes. In other words, less coordination required between the endpoints. On Apr 29, 2013 11:20 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: [snip] > > I don't believe that the proposal improves the situation enough (or at > all) to justify the additional complexity. That's something that you > need to assess for yourself. This proposal provides more granular > control, but it doesn't address the core problem, which is that you > and I can only observe each other actions after some delay, which > means that we can't coordinate those actions perfectly. Nor can be > build a perfect model of the other upon which to observe and act upon. > The usual protocol issue.
Received on Monday, 29 April 2013 21:09:02 UTC