- From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:33:47 -0800
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 21:34:34 UTC
I suspect that several of the settings (compression state, flow control, etc) are simply going to be too dynamic for us to rely on DNS. On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > It will in certain use-cases, e.g. restarting a browser with many open > tabs, using a webapp or native application accessing a remote site, or when > a service is experiencing heavy load (it may decrease the max compression > state size), etc. > -=R > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote: > >> >> On 2/5/13 10:06 PM, Roberto Peon wrote: >> >> I don't remember BDP being one of these, though we did have discussion >> that talked about BDP in relation to some of the settings. >> These were more along the lines of max-concurrent-streams, >> max-compressor-state-size, and various other HTTP/2 specific settings that >> the client should know about/respect. >> >> >> Ok, next question: given that we're mandating a settings frame as part of >> connection initialization (at least I think we agreed on that), does >> putting this stuff in DNS save anything? >> >> Eliot >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 21:34:34 UTC