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

Re: Maintenance frame contention vs CONTINUATION

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 16:49:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcJyvBNkOLncRH-X55sff8E18kfJEJM5jOOfpR7Zjp38Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 4:16 PM, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 that’s the same as just having
> one big frame.

And by timely delivery, we all mean that the *execution* of priority
changes be timely :)
That could happen as a result of a new stream appearing at a higher
priority than a previously existing stream, and thus doesn't require a
priority 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 23:50:03 UTC

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