IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] Flow control quota

"Arman Djusupov" <arman@noemax.com> Thu, 28 June 2012 08:33 UTC

Return-Path: <arman@noemax.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70F721F88FE for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.461
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.461 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.137, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 rW5USUMJGkp3 for <hybi@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.noemax.com (mail.noemax.com [64.34.201.8]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C46C21F890D for <hybi@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; t=1340872436; x=1341477236; s=m1024; d=noemax.com; c=relaxed/relaxed; v=1; bh=HmRlkYoD7W6eWYZxXEQuoGC/6Yo=; h=From:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References; b=ruOCumjz6p4xzeDhjtUyLPQIT9scBNwKRz+F7rRQsJlcx1BrcnRoSSEeKT3Wfihwhqr2PD9+GHm/z5Gzsf73SuXZTuaoij1mE3MTo0vqSXOEQFsjnRfrSc01L8X5SGWTilaOiP2lgwvFgEW0fPXnYqi0vbWNFevyoQXuX/7Z3ro=
Received: from mail.noemax.com by mail.noemax.com (IceWarp 10.4.1) with ASMTP (SSL) id MOJ45355; Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:33:55 +0300
From: Arman Djusupov <arman@noemax.com>
To: 'Takeshi Yoshino' <tyoshino@google.com>
References: <001a01cd3e69$4a221c10$de665430$@noemax.com> <4FC732DC.3000308@250bpm.com> <000e01cd3f1c$af15ad40$0d4107c0$@noemax.com> <4FC880A7.9070007@250bpm.com> <CAH9hSJaWrUX6gFNLT4xkXLYKHSUH5+Y7AvqN9cD_CwekvsNu3A@mail.gmail.com> <001001cd4000$fe2c82c0$fa858840$@noemax.com> <4FCCAE6B.1010306@250bpm.com> <002d01cd4262$747957b0$5d6c0710$@noemax.com> <20120607022312.GA26406@jl-vm1.vm.bytemark.co.uk> <000e01cd449d$1c0ed220$542c7660$@noemax.com> <CAH_y2NE6+3r_9pkYXhMOiRWfGJXGauEYCqg-8GvtOoCT9Ch0mA@mail.gmail.com> <000401cd4566$d5f6bb70$81e43250$@noemax.com> <CAH9hSJZfXdh2yj+g37DCCtfUK6QBAiPCDh4oh-umOnKG1+g_RQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAH9hSJY4eRKLqSSkdKxFjtcY3dZhnfSatEAnwobdFvybVZ7bSg@mail.gmail.com> <002f01cd5442$c0129370$4037ba50$@noemax.com> <CAH9hSJatWnJ9Bw5icAzyao2HGvBKWnZ6-YYrrPdpmT_TVAt8aA@mail.gmail.com> <005301cd545d$0a329030$1e97b090$@noemax.com> <CAH9hSJasxSbv03uh3qwD2pjfzT_ZKBKx9Guosx8tS+1-U+8y9w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH9hSJasxSbv03uh3qwD2pjfzT_ZKBKx9Guosx8tS+1-U+8y9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 11:33:11 +0300
Message-ID: <009c01cd5508$ab95e840$02c1b8c0$@noemax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_009D_01CD5521.D0E56A30"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQDnHEYxNcL9Xb2UVJoRm1lbL/BkAQFoH3KRAV1ppa8CZ6BgXAIpbgj4AsMo47wDBdtyYwH7TrBAAdzt12oB94xqWAGEGWmHAlGfbXgBsAbLXwLdWUHuAf+8S9ECjfJZgAGqAOJEAslzr0OXuTsEgA==
Content-Language: en-us
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] Flow control quota
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 08:33:58 -0000

> I have no idea why you connected the sentences with "so", but yes. There
would be no problem with applying per-frame compression after this new mux.

 

Sorry, I was just rephrasing the text and forgot the "so" in that place.

 

> Yes. As I stated here
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi/current/msg09720.html, I'm going
to also change the compression algorithm to per-message one. Then, there
would be no fragmentation lock for any combination.

 

Agree.

 

> We can

> - add per-message flag to encapsulating message that indicates it has the
final chunk of the encapsulated frame

> - change the quota mechanism from per-frame basis to per-byte basis

> to make the mux to keep frame boundary.

 

What do you mean by "per-byte" basis? Current flow control quota is already
expressed in bytes.

 

With best regards,

Arman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email