W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

RE: Sticky headers and pipelining (was: Sticky header draft -- as an attachment)

From: Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 09:49:05 -0700
Message-Id: <c=US%a=_%p=msft%l=RED-77-MSG-960808164905Z-11070@tide19.microsoft.com>
To: "'Roy T. Fielding'" <fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU>
Cc: 'http-wg' <http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1248

>From: 	Roy T. Fielding[SMTP:fielding@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU]
>Subject: 	Re: Sticky headers and pipelining (was: Sticky header draft -- as
>an attachment) 
>BTW, while we are on the topic, I would prefer that the two unrelated
>concepts of sticky headers and short header names be in two separate
>drafts.  They should be evaluated independently.

I thought about that. I agree that they should be evaluated separately,
and can be adopted independently. However, if both are adopted, using
one mechanism (Connection: sticky) to say that you're using both saves
some bytes on the wire. Even if sticky headers are in use, the use of
abbreviations is not required, so a client that only wants to do sticky
is not forced to do extra work. The only drawback I can see is if the
client wants to do abbreviations but not do sticky headers. I don't know
if that is likely.

Unless there is some reason to believe that one will fly and the other
one won't, then I'd personally avoid the overhead of a separate draft.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 1996 09:54:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC