IETF Logo Mail Archive

HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 28 May 2013 09:27 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 4BA2821F9497 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 02:27:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.798
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.798 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.800, 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 bJ6M-02pDInB for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 02:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56D4621F9418 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 02:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UhGAd-0001dt-R7 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:26:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 09:26:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhGAd-0001dt-R7@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UhGAN-0001d6-PI for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:26:03 +0000
Received: from mail-out4.uio.no ([129.240.10.15]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UhGAG-00049g-CR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 09:26:02 +0000
Received: from mail-mx4.uio.no ([129.240.10.45]) by mail-out4.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UhG9u-0005wy-8h; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:25:34 +0200
Received: from boomerang.ifi.uio.no ([129.240.68.135]) by mail-mx4.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) user michawe (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1UhG9s-0008Bu-HF; Tue, 28 May 2013 11:25:34 +0200
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2430398F-8D00-4DC9-8B59-C179CFA48A51"
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 11:25:31 +0200
Message-Id: <A372C012-0840-4B0F-8F49-D735F6B1D342@ifi.uio.no>
Cc: iccrg list <iccrg@cs.ucl.ac.uk>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
X-UiO-SPF-Received:
X-UiO-Ratelimit-Test: rcpts/h 3 msgs/h 2 sum rcpts/h 4 sum msgs/h 3 total rcpts 4478 max rcpts/h 40 ratelimit 0
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.5, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.551, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: B8FE5C3C6EB93E2A0FA906BE4625423EE22CF14A
X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 129.240.68.135 spam_score: -54 maxlevel 80 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 2 total 1998 max/h 12 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0
Received-SPF: none client-ip=129.240.10.15; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=mail-out4.uio.no
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.07
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UhGAG-00049g-CR 84c217292ef6d9c99219eb1480d5d6df
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/A372C012-0840-4B0F-8F49-D735F6B1D342@ifi.uio.no>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18109
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>

(including ICCRG because folks there might be interested)

Hi,

I just joined the list. While I did look at some old presentations from minutes and the list archive, I might have missed an answer to the question I'm asking - my apologies in this case!

Here it goes: here, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-02#section-3.7.4
various values are defined, like an estimate of the upload bandwidth, download bandwidth, the RTT, the initial window and so forth.

I wonder, has it been discussed whether these things are useful and/or appropriate?
I have only seen a thread related to SETTINGS_CURRENT_CWND, but what about all the other stuff (values 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)? This smells like a feedback channel for app-layer congestion control, is this the plan  (of, ahem, the whole HTTPBIS group) ?    :-)

Thanks, cheers,
Michael

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email