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

Re: Content-Transfer-Encoding "packet"

From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:37:24 -0400
Message-Id: <199507242137.RAA01555@beach.w3.org>
To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
>  > The advantages that the one-byte packet-size has is that it takes up
>  > a minimal amount of space in the stream of bits to the transfer and
>  > is trivial for any system to produce or consume.  Allowing larger
>  > packets means we have to use decimal (with the additional CRLF delimiters)
>  > or hope that everyone remembers to read the number in network byte order.
>I acknowledge a small space improvement (see below).  I wouldn't rank
>it as "onorous".  I think "network byte order" is a red herring -- you
>would be converting a decimal number to binary.

That is an "or", as in we could send the number using a binary integer
if the integer was restricted to network-byte-order interpretation, but
implementations are notorious for screwing that up in spite of the specs.

>Here is a comparison of the two for selected message sizes.  (Please

That is a useful comparison for data transfer overhead (thanks),
but what we really need is a comparison of processing overhead,
taking into account the vagaries of TCP socket reads/writes.

Keep it coming ....

Received on Monday, 24 July 1995 14:38:57 UTC

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