- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 17:23:20 -0700
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 7 July 2014 17:02, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > > 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. It's only that way because you made it that way. The common factor is that they deal with incoming bytes. That's not a particularly strong argument. > I think that allowing a dynamic stream max frame size is just another useful > lever that some flow control algorithms will like to pull. "I think" doesn't really go far enough to justify what is a pretty fundamental change to the structure of the protocol (far more so, in my opinion than the relatively arbitrary change to frame size). We could build all sorts of knobs, levers and dials. The key to success doesn't involve finding all those that can be justified and add them, it involves finding all those that can be done without and removing them.
Received on Tuesday, 8 July 2014 00:23:47 UTC