- From: 陈智昌 <willchan@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:12:11 -0300
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAA4WUYi++SSvM7KWADrK9XZssH2=_+tPzA4waUZj2cPWwtrx3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Why will the server top out? We set our browser advertised MAX_CONCURRENT_STREAMS limit to 1000: https://code.google.com/p/chromium/codesearch#chromium/src/net/spdy/spdy_session.h&sq=package:chromium&rcl=1367246521&l=49. 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