W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2013

Re: Design Issue: Max Concurrent Streams Limit and Unidirectional Streams

From: (wrong string) 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:12:11 -0300
Message-ID: <CAA4WUYi++SSvM7KWADrK9XZssH2=_+tPzA4waUZj2cPWwtrx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Why will the server top out? We set our browser advertised
What receiver of push streams is going to have a low limit? Or are you
worried that it'll want to push more than 1000 streams in a roundtrip?

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 6:08 PM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 21:13:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:10 UTC