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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 22:57:33 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <78597.1404773853@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABkgnnUQ-SEYmW5tN+ZVZJMBm4cUsWsSoZot37ZjkpTfqHMWQQ@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson w
rites:
>On 7 July 2014 15:31, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

>I don't think that I was clear enough.  I really don't like that part,
>compulsory or not.  I think that it's an unvarnished attempted to cram
>per-stream settings into the protocol.  It's unnecessary and very
>poorly supported.
>
>A simpler and better approach for those connections that need generous
>frame sizes occasionally would be to advertise a large setting.  As
>PHK is fond of telling us: you don't have to use all of it.

But if you advertise a larger max with SETTINGS it applies to all streams.

What if you only want to pamper that one video-stream or conversely,
only want to handicap that background upload ?

I think per-stream settings are missing in the current draft and most
of the priority stuff seems to be a poor substitute for it.

-- 
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 22:57:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC