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

Re: Sticky stuff.

From: Simon Spero <ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 23:53:07 -0400 (EDT)
To: Anselm Baird-Smith <abaird@w3.org>
Cc: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>, Paul Leach <paulle@microsoft.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960809233950.11355A-100000@tipper.oit.unc.edu>
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1290
I'd like to agree with everyone (or disagree , but lets be positive...)

With current patterns of header usage, header reuse is not a 
particularly significant fraction of traffic. Koen's study which was 
performed about a year (?) ago shoed a rather small header set. 
Earlier samples had much larger header sizes (~1.2K). 

The reason for the change is almost entirely due to the reduction in the 
number Accept headers in the typical profile.The reason for doing this 
was that the headers were too big. 

The lack of stickiness caused the header size to shrink - it's hard to 
separate cause and effect here.


Cause maybe  (maybe)		      | In my mind I'm going to Carolina
you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th.
And after all			      | Email address remains unchanged
You're my firewall -    	      | ........First in Usenet.........
Received on Friday, 9 August 1996 20:55:05 UTC

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