- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 15:00:27 +1100
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
I hear general agreement that adding these is a somewhat good idea, so I'm going to mark as editor-ready and direct Martin to consider the list feedback. If someone has an issue with what he does that they think is worth talking about, we can do that in the short review of -16. Cheers, > On 22 Nov 2014, at 3:39 am, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote: > > h2 bits are e2e > > That is wrong. Any h2 intermediaries will likely be varying the RTT > based on work being done for unrelated clients traffic. Stream windows > may also be scaled down/up at each hop depending on the various hops > capabilities. The way the h2 spec is written intermediaries have to do > a *lot* of transcoding work to pass traffic around. > > > heh. true enough. > > > My assumption was that anyone concerned enough about rtt measurment to consider it as part of the security consideration would only consider a tunnel through an intermediary :) > -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 25 November 2014 04:00:55 UTC