- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 08:16:53 -0800
- To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, Osama Mazahir <OSAMAM@microsoft.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 22 February 2013 05:18, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote: > Why 1? 1 seems a little restrictive, especially since 6 concurrent connections is the current expectation in many browsers. > If a client sends 8 concurrent streams, and the server only wants to handle > 6 (say, because it is particularly resource limited right now), then it will > reset two of the streams with an error code that essentially says > try-again-later, and it can do so after sending the SETTINGS frame. This is not isomorphic with a lower stream limit simply because the client will have sent some amount of data for the 2 rejected streams, expending some of what is a fairly limited resource (INIT CWD being as it is). That's probably OK if you consider that it's the client prerogative and responsibility.
Received on Friday, 22 February 2013 16:17:21 UTC