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

Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION

From: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:16:22 +0800
Message-Id: <87000BB6-F5FD-4CFA-8682-FD1751C8860E@gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
One purpose of a small frame size, which led to CONTINUATION frames, is to ensure timely delivery of PRIORITY frames. (I would infer this applies, even more, to WINDOW_UPDATE.) But the CONTINUATION spec says they must form an uninterrupted chain after HEADERS, and thatís the same as just having one big frame.

Do header blocks displace non-content-bearing frames such as PRIORITY, WINDOW_UPDATE, RST_STREAM, PING, and SETTINGS, or is there supposed to be an exception to the rule?
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 23:17:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC