Re: Proposal: New Frame Size Text (was: Re: Design Issue: Frame Size Items) from Martin Thomson on 2013-05-10 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from April to June 2013)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 10:44:28 -0700
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Hasan Khalil <hkhalil@google.com>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW9H3Qcvcwrx3HU+X+VDyCid3UjmXN_kpvq1XwivCuu4A@mail.gmail.com>

On 10 May 2013 10:27, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm strongly against including header frames in flow control.

I'll point out that this would also complicate the processing in a
sender quite a lot.  Headers are serialized on a session basis.  If
headers were subject to per-stream back pressure then it would be
necessary to delay encoding until the frame is committed to the send
buffer.

Received on Friday, 10 May 2013 17:45:08 UTC