W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: BLOCKED frame specification

From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 23:35:55 +0800
Cc: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B6D4974C-20DC-4116-9B8D-927EC3E1D1D1@gmail.com>
To: Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>

On 2014Ė04Ė16, at 11:07 PM, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org> wrote:

> I think there's a misunderstanding here. Priorities are about the relative ordering of multiple ready-to-write streams. A sender can and certainly should send a dependent stream frame, if that's what's available.

I didnít say anything about priorities. A sender should only send a dependent stream frame if all its dependencies are blocked. Otherwise, the dependent stream is blocked.

Can you give an example of when a unidirectional BLOCKED frame would be sent?

> An empty DATA frame will simply be coalesced (ignored) by the first intermediary. 
> 
> That's fine. Flow control is also hop-by-hop.

Itís not fine because such a debugging/tuning facility stops working if any ISP, load balancer, or firewall employs a proxy.

What is it you intend to accomplish? There may be a misunderstanding.


Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2014 15:36:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC