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

Re: Sticky stuff.

From: Lou Montulli <montulli@netscape.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:27:42 -0700
Message-Id: <320FA1CE.ABD@netscape.com>
To: Koen Holtman <koen@win.tue.nl>
Cc: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu, jg@zorch.w3.org, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1320
Koen Holtman wrote:
> hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu:
> >[...] however the question which I was raising was whether
> >compressing the body of the message was more relevant than
> >compressing the headers.
> Here is a version of the answer:
>  - sticky headers: 1-4% traffic savings
>  - compressing text/html and text/plain entities in relayed
>    responses: 20-45% traffic savings
> Now, why is there so much fuss over sticky headers?  Ever since Accept
> headers dropped below 1.4K, they are a solution in search of a
> problem.  If this group were to produce a sticky header spec, the spec
> would only distract vendors from implementing optimizations which are
> actually worth the effort.

I would like to chime in here and support Koen's position.
As an implementor I think my time would be much better
spent on other optimizations than sticky headers.  Perhaps
in the future, if HTTP still looks any thing similiar
to what it does today, we should reconsider them.

Lou Montulli                 http://www.netscape.com/people/montulli/
       Netscape Communications Corp.
Received on Monday, 12 August 1996 14:30:56 UTC

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