- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2017 10:36:43 +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>
On 10 August 2017 at 10:20, Jana Iyengar <jri@google.com> wrote: > I've assumed that without SETTINGS, you couldn't really send a request > anyways, so that was basically necessary HoLB. This introduces another frame > that can cause additional HoLB. Right. Though I'm not sure that SETTINGS is actually blocking now that it is so severely reduced in scope. It governs what you might send in response, but only peripheral stuff, like header compression table size, which are largely avoidable. But we already had that HOLB problem for server push, so it isn't a major burden. If it is, then sending the SETTINGS (or MAX_PUSH_ID) frame in every packet is a possible, albeit crude, solution. I was going to make this argument: > Though you could easily make the argument that we'd expect SETTINGS and the > first MAX_PUSH_ID frame to be sent in the same packet. Especially since we just saved bytes from the SETTINGS frame. In any case, I've revised the PR.
Received on Thursday, 10 August 2017 00:37:06 UTC