- From: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:23:58 -0500
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Jul 11, 2014, at 12:47 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: >> 5) Allowing interleaving of CONTINUATION frames with other frames. >> 5b) The size of the HEADERS and CONTINUATION frames are removed from the >> flow control window, but the they are never flow controlled. > > I think that 4 and 5 might be problematic. > > 4 doesn't seem to be well understood, but the interaction between TCP > congestion window and something like the proposed 5b could mean some > serious stalling/HOL issues. More serious than the issues it purports > to address. > > I think that 5 is a non-starter. Roberto's analysis on this has > convinced me that this is an undesirable feature. Just to clarify you mean 5b not 5, correct? Fragmenting’s justification is proxies. However proxies can’t have HOL blocking occurring, so without 5 the feature is of limited value. -- Jason T. Greene WildFly Lead / JBoss EAP Platform Architect JBoss, a division of Red Hat
Received on Friday, 11 July 2014 18:25:18 UTC