Re: [hybi] Multiplexing extension spec draft 03

[Greg Wilkins <[e-mail]>]

On 1 March 2012 09:34, John Tamplin <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I think of a router or switch where you want to minimize the processing as
> you pass bits from an input to an output.  A WS mux intermediary is likely
> to be higher level than that, probably about the same as a load balancer so
> it doesn't necessarily apply at that level.  I can see the argument both
> ways, and I think we need to discuss the relative merits of both before
> deciding.
>

Sure - just advocating one side of it, but can live with nested if we
determine an advantage.

Note that an intermediary that is demuxing/remuxing will have little work
to do on the average data packet - it will simply need to maintain a
mapping of inbound channelId to outbound channelID and update the channel
ID in the packets as it forwards them (this may be an argument for fixed
length channelID encoding).  This like flow control wont need to be fully
implemented, as the intermediary can just pass back quotas to the source.

cheers