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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 10:02:22 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEGu=mh9AtSFVjPmyUTk-nmUYhkb4H7ENhhFuzfnpxZtg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 8 July 2014 09:04, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

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

I indeed think that the dynamic max frame size is part of the flow control
calculations, hence that is why I proposed it as part of the WINDOW_UPDATE
and not as SETTINGS.

You can see that the example given that the calculation to adjust the max
frame size is done as part of the calculation for window size.

I think that allowing a dynamic stream max frame size is just another
useful lever that some flow control algorithms will like to pull.  Others
will not, but then others also will not adjust the 64KB window either.
The whole point of the current flow control design is to allow flow control
to develop over time with experience.  Having frame size as part of that
will be valuable to explore the space of possible solutions.


Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 00:02:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:19 UTC