- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 17:04:14 +1200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 12/07/2014 2:59 p.m., Martin Thomson wrote: > On 11 July 2014 19:49, Amos Jeffries wrote: >> >> HOL blocking a connection while one client incrementally HPACKs streamed >> headers is orthoginal to HOL blocking how? > > Don't do that. I think that's been said plenty of times. If you > intermediate and multiplex messages from multiple peers onto the same > connection, you can't safely stream headers. We must be reading different WG lists. Because the rationale I've been seeing most strongly behind removing reference set was to increase streaming of HEADERS+CONTINUATION from A to B without having to worry about size or buffering. Mostly server peoples arguments, with a case for not wanting to buffer child application output. If one elimitates buffering of headers before send then the HOL is directly incurred. Nothing orthogonal about that. > You need to have an > entire block before you commit, otherwise you have this problem. But > that's *your* fault as the intermediary, not the fault of your clients > or the protocol. > I do agree completely. Which is why I am neither supporting nor objecting to the HPACK proposals at this point. Amos
Received on Saturday, 12 July 2014 05:04:46 UTC