- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 19:48:52 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In message <CABkgnnW=+BXXQvf4dNqMG9UAqPZ4dXOqmMr8QNqY3=uh5XkH3Q@mail.gmail.com> , Martin Thomson writes: >My one big reservation is with the addition to WINDOW_UPDATE. I think >that it's unnecessary complexity. The other changes you make are >well-enough supported, but this seems like feature creep to me. Actually I suspect this will be a much more efficient way to prioritize multiple competing streams than the complex priority scheme currently proposed. So feature creep ? Well, yes. But if it appears to make all the priority stuff surplus to requirements, then it's a feature shaving and much simpler to explain and implement. >I think that the setting for maximum header block size needs to cover >PUSH_PROMISE (we already have settings that govern PUSH_PROMISE). Good catch! >Any why 16384 rather than 16383? Because computers have VM pages that are sized 2^n and many hardware facilities work best in entire words. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2014 19:49:17 UTC