Re: Sequential and Max Push ID (was Re: Push ID - Merge Imminent) from Martin Thomson on 2017-08-10 (ietf-http-wg@w3.org from July to September 2017)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:11:07 +1000
To: Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com>
Cc: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Ian Swett <ianswett@google.com>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXMkWmRDTmfQTzzky8Jd5v_2PNKbV7zxvkga5CUG2cwJQ@mail.gmail.com>

On 10 August 2017 at 08:00, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> wrote:

> I think it's useful to avoid HoLB since the first request and the
> MAX_PUSH_ID frame may get reordered and/or the MAX_PUSH_ID frame may need
> retransmission. Push is already weak on benefits, so (without any evidence)
> I wonder whether any benefits due to it would be sensitive to this small
> variation.
>

I was going to make exactly the same point, but then I realized that you
can't push without SETTINGS anyway and that has the exact same properties.

Received on Thursday, 10 August 2017 00:11:30 UTC