- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 18:24:29 -0700
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > inline >[snip] >> >> > There is language in the spec that if the client resets a stream that it >> > implicitly resets any associated streams too. That was complicated to >> > implement and pretty much broke my stream state model internally - while >> > researching it it appears that mod_spdy and chrome don't implement it at >> > all. The spec has an editorial note about removing that feature and I >> > favor >> > that removal. >> >> I added that text, so I tend to agree. :) > > > I agree it should be removed. If we need a mechanism to close many streams, > we can add a new opcode type instead of some implicit requirement. > If I recall correctly, everyone seemed to be nodding in agreement on this one. >> >> >> > I found flow control for pushed streams immensely helpful. It lets the >> > client bound how much data can be pushed before there is a local GET >> > matched >> > up with that. Relatedly, I changed my default SETTINGS window size from >> > a >> > ~infinite value to be a smaller push-apropos value and then pipelined a >> > window update with each odd SYN_STREAM to make pulled streams ~infinite >> > again while preserving the smaller limit for push and this worked fine >> > with >> > all existing servers to my pleasant surprise. That seems to mean at >> > least >> > the spdy/3 windowing mechanism is simple enough for people to get right. >> >> That's interesting. Do you believe that it would be worthwhile >> splitting the initial window size setting in two? One for streams I >> initiate, one for streams you initiate? That would save you a window >> update on every new stream. >> "Splitting the initial window" seems wrong to me. Of course, I don't have a better suggestion at the moment, but if I did I'm not certain it would be this ;-) [snip] - James
Received on Wednesday, 15 May 2013 01:25:15 UTC