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: Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:56:08 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEWUgjp5juTK=kZOu43Rq=KNZCOAprm2E48Vpu99UMTVQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, William Chan (ι™ˆζ™Ίζ˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 9 July 2014 12:35, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dynamic changes are unlikely to happen in practice;


If the proposal is accepted, Jetty is definitely planning on modifying our
server to adjust the frame size setting to a large value when we see a
single large upload on a request.

We will do the same for our client for downloads.


> perhaps that should be disallowed


Please no.

While I would have preferred a per stream limit for dynamic changes (to
match the per stream flow control window) as per the original proposal,
I've accepted the argument made by Martin that having that as an optional
part of the specification makes unlikely to be useful.  A dynamic setting
for the connection can be used almost the same.         But eitherway, I
think the limit should be considered as part of the flow control algorithm
and thus is naturally dynamic.

cheers




-- 
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 Wednesday, 9 July 2014 02:56:40 UTC

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