W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > September to December 1994

Re: Comments on HTTP draft [of 23 Nov 1994]

From: Roy T. Fielding <fielding@avron.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 1994 13:08:47 -0800
To: Simon E Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Cc: Chuck Shotton <cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <9412021308.aa13350@paris.ics.uci.edu>
> Looking at IMS on a packet by packet basis, in the presence of possibly 
> large headers greater than 512 bytes,  having the client  cancel will save
> 2 packets in the best case, and be no worse in the worst case. I sent 
> a message on tis to www-talk during chicago with more analysis. my hands
> aren't up
> to recreating it at the moment, and I think the message dissapeared 
> in transit. i'll see if i can find it again.

Good luck.  Given that a typical IMS request message is

     64 bytes + length(URL) + user-agent (if any)

and a 304 Not Modified response is typically 98 bytes, I haven't got a
clue as to how you could come up with such figures.

That means (aside from the connection packets) one packet for the request
and one for the response.  In contrast, a normal request will generally 
buffer 16 packets before the client even has a chance to read the response --
cancelling at that point is useless.


......Roy Fielding   ICS Grad Student, University of California, Irvine  USA
                                     <fielding@ics.uci.edu>
                     <URL:http://www.ics.uci.edu/dir/grad/Software/fielding>
Received on Friday, 2 December 1994 13:16:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:31:08 EDT