Re: Flow control clarification
Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Sat, 20 July 2013 21:30 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 2DF4B11E80E0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 ALnx1ha1igBY for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:30:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E291311E80D1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:30:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1V0eit-00007A-36 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:29:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:29:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1V0eit-00007A-36@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1V0eil-00006S-FK for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:29:43 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1V0eik-0001By-PG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 21:29:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id up14so6831254obb.28 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=tKDjUwN0U/evoxlc6pUD20uLXua0QAmFCe9oTeHLG+0=; b=Y+DTWUei6SFm5OAHFZ12V6L02nLGTuRRwvMqBM70qPGmpTyPxocijCMsfmurzLdo/o G9ofMmMJyNXZLjEeRNIzNyPFL87+OfVmYUcpZyfN6Y1Z0rLAN+xwTjPanTUZT3nat4IN 6qlg5L2b8h4DEhSAfxqONzdgzNxI8ihwoIUlqQkS2nc76GCPOG3+5AHv7eQCVtjaK2VD uwWga/fsypMBF19D896NQwowH+vulb6xGGWBX1bdY/mFz5DnPHpShA9bNVgyor9LLPc9 fyPItIjFCAEWtyJh+lWP71bfQzFqQA84hCoyunnm7L1oxm8lnyjtwuoKTqNPfjbzIQeU Bodw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.140.168 with SMTP id rh8mr22313126oeb.17.1374355756663; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.91.229 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.91.229 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYgvvCGF5NrRO4XBCPoWxAqW_oYG2V=07rLQUypMTO5TPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABkgnnV1mSg6jgn0BPP-GYyzCZvBTXdq7D3_vonTmP6cMG9VsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CE104626.4728F%sludin@akamai.com> <CAA4WUYgvvCGF5NrRO4XBCPoWxAqW_oYG2V=07rLQUypMTO5TPg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 14:29:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNe4EJ8uu-azZQ6ZXOA-eEL0MSmiOk6Bb8RaMegWRmiTZQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Will Chan <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Stephen Ludin <sludin@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2e4c46abc9d204e1f822ad"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.688, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1V0eik-0001By-PG cf512d6f8b8d5832abe213febb0400f5
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Flow control clarification
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNe4EJ8uu-azZQ6ZXOA-eEL0MSmiOk6Bb8RaMegWRmiTZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18860
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>
And they need not be sent at the same time. -=R On Jul 20, 2013 2:20 PM, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > Yes. > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Ludin, Stephen <sludin@akamai.com> wrote: > >> I want to make certain I am reading this correctly (section 6.9.1): If a >> receiver has not disabled flow control, it is responsible for sending two >> WINDOW_UPDATE frames to maintain flow: one for the stream and one for the >> connection. Correct? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -stephen >> >> >> >> >
- Re: Default Stream Priority? Martin Thomson
- Re: Default Stream Priority? David Morris
- Default Stream Priority? Kulkarni, Saurabh
- Re: Default Stream Priority? Martin Thomson
- Flow control clarification Ludin, Stephen
- Re: Flow control clarification William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Flow control clarification Roberto Peon