IETF Logo Mail Archive

"MAY employ flow control", was: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2 feedback

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> Wed, 31 July 2013 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1284221F9B1B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:12:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nEOFQyarP6K6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F79421F9B7F for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 08:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V4Y3K-00014g-Bc for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:11:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:11:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V4Y3K-00014g-Bc@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V4Y39-00013w-If for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:10:51 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@gmx.de>) id 1V4Y34-0002vt-Rh for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 15:10:51 +0000
Received: from [130.129.20.103] ([130.129.20.103]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0MMoU7-1UzL6Z0WZb-008clx for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:10:20 +0200
Message-ID: <51F928DA.9060604@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 17:10:18 +0200
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
CC: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <51F8DA31.20903@gmx.de> <51F92362.6020900@treenet.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <51F92362.6020900@treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:tnuLe6X0uSTDhIwhRsCl0J2cMrkJPCZ03YB8iK65SSv0IaxE4+s maq95aHOrIMT1Li9CAq+x1DkaXUyxVFwDBrcLWpW5FDT4Uz1OUlYoQ6NFsAzBiDJc8rRn1a 3piuYUdf1qxylYgzZlCTl4sqJrmNpGX8w1HQRdN1WhJj5DU1WtFwbJ8KslnFCjRCZaoJQVY 2O5A3uKUYMEKY0G79ad6Q==
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=julian.reschke@gmx.de; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1V4Y34-0002vt-Rh ef680b3b7ad14ce10afe9662b6d0695a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: "MAY employ flow control", was: draft-ietf-httpbis-http2 feedback
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51F928DA.9060604@gmx.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/19015
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2013-07-31 16:46, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> On 31/07/2013 9:34 p.m., Julian Reschke wrote:
>> Questions:
>>
> <snip>
>>
>> 5.2.2
>>
>> "Deployments with constrained resources (for example, memory) MAY
>> employ flow control to limit the amount of memory a peer can consume.
>> Note, however, that this can lead to suboptimal use of available
>> network resources if flow control is enabled without knowledge of the
>> bandwidth-delay product (see [RFC1323])."
>>
>> s/MAY/can/
>>
>
> I took this as being intentionally normative language. One participant
> MAY use the feature therefore all participante MUST implement support
> just in case it happens. With "can" there is no normative requirement on
> the other participants to implement anything regarding flow control,
> which would lead to harm for the participant needing it.

If *that* is the concern it really needs to be addressed more clearly.

(I had the impression that flow control support clearly is not optional).

Best regards, Julian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email