W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1995

Re: Content-Transfer-Encoding "packet"

From: John Franks <john@math.nwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 09:53:06 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199507241453.JAA08115@hopf.math.nwu.edu>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
Cc: fielding@beach.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
According to Dave Kristol:
> Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org> said:
>   [...]
>   > Also, I've been playing around with various formats and have
>   > found that the optimum for most transfers uses a simple one-byte
>   > prefix to encode the length of each packet, with a zero byte
>   > indicating end-of-packets.
> Could you elaborate?  I'd be curious to know the tradeoffs you examined
> before choosing this approach.  In particular, was the overhead of an
> ASCII packet length (i.e., human readable) so onorous?

Also a maiximum packet size of 255 bytes seems quite small.  Could you
explain the rationale for that?

John Franks
Received on Monday, 24 July 1995 07:53:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:14 UTC