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

Re: #541: CONTINUATION

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:03:01 +0000
To: Tatsuhiro Tsujikawa <tatsuhiro.t@gmail.com>
cc: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <81920.1404835381@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAPyZ6=KeAcET3ocnX3EDFoL38G=mNKoXtodRbvw-6aVCaSkfqw@mail.gmail.com>, Tatsuhiro Tsujik
awa writes:

>Why do we have to use same frame size for HTTP/2 with video's?
>We can deliver multiple DATA frames for 1 video frame.

See for instance earlier messages about the overhead cost of small frames
relative to printers.  A lot of embedded equipment processes high bandwidth
with little CPU power these days.

>Also big frame really hurts multiplexing many people stated earlier.

It is not the size of the frame that hurts multiplexing, it is the
amount of time it takes to move it, also known as "bandwidth".

Designing the protocol for only the lowest bandwidths is not a goal.

-- 
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 Tuesday, 8 July 2014 16:03:27 UTC

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