Re: HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 28 May 2013 10:43 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 7705A21F968B for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 03:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.500, 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 867cNAVZaZKU for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 03:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65B2421F9688 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 03:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UhHLj-0005To-Om for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 10:41:51 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 10:41:51 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhHLj-0005To-Om@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UhHLX-0005Se-BH for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 10:41:39 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UhHLS-0001dE-Jp for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 10:41:39 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.184.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B488222E257; Tue, 28 May 2013 06:41:06 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B910C3C4-3566-430C-A82D-756E2DE7A855@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 20:41:02 +1000
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, iccrg@irtf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0F5D3725-8C49-41B8-B581-8F6AAD940DC6@mnot.net>
References: <A372C012-0840-4B0F-8F49-D735F6B1D342@ifi.uio.no> <B910C3C4-3566-430C-A82D-756E2DE7A855@ifi.uio.no>
To: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.399, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UhHLS-0001dE-Jp a310a6597a01cf6f98c845033504773f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/0F5D3725-8C49-41B8-B581-8F6AAD940DC6@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18111
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>
:) We're planning a joint session with Transport area folks in Berlin, to discuss things just like this; ICCRG folks are of course welcome to come along. Cheers, On 28/05/2013, at 7:31 PM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > I can't believe that this keeps happening to me (being one of the chairs of ICCRG) - very sorry, everyone! Here's a fix, using the correct address for ICCRG! > > Cheers, > Michael > > > On 28. mai 2013, at 11:25, Michael Welzl wrote: > >> (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 >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values Michael Welzl
- Re: HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values Michael Welzl
- Re: HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values Mark Nottingham
- Re: HTTP/2.0 SETTINGS frame values William Chan (ιζΊζ)