- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 14:40:17 -0800
- To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11 February 2014 14:33, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote: > "Separate WINDOW_UPDATE frames are sent for the stream and connection level > flow control windows. " > > It seems that we don't usually need a separate WINDOW_UPDATE for the > connection (with streamid = 0). When a particular stream gets processed, we > send a WINDOW_UPDATE for that stream, but doesn't this also imply that the > connection-level window should also be updated? When would a WINDOW_UPDATE > for a stream NOT imply an update on the connection window? > > I can see keeping around WINDOW_UPDATE with streamid = 0 for the case where > you want to increase only the connection window size at the beginning of the > connection, but after that setup, it seems like a waste of bandwidth to send > these extra WINDOW_UPDATE frames for the connection window. > > Thoughts? There are two layers of flow control windows, one per stream, and a single connection-level window. WINDOW_UPDATE on stream 0 increases the space advertised on the connection-level window. It's critical to protocol operation that this be separately updated to the stream-level windows.
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2014 22:40:45 UTC