What he said :) -=R On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: > ... and looking at Browser Hints (or at least the cut-down revision that I > haven't submitted yet), there's not an obvious win (yet). > > How about we punt on this aspect of the record for now? Maybe leave an > opaque blob in the record for (potential) later use? > > Cheers, > > > On 06/02/2013, at 8:33 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2013 21:59:19 UTC