W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > January to April 1998

Re: Compression (was Re: your mail )

From: Jeffrey Mogul <mogul@pa.dec.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 98 10:21:43 PST
Message-Id: <9801051821.AA20421@acetes.pa.dec.com>
To: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com, mogul@pa.dec.com
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/5055
Fred Douglis wrote, in reply to Simon Barratt ( Barog ):
    >What discussions of compression has their been? Will a simple compression
    >algorithm be implemented into HTTP (only as an option, so that slower
    >clients can choose not to retrieve compressed data).. The data could be
    >compressed already, and sent out in this form... Also an uncompressed
    >version could still be stored to send to the slower clients (who couldn't
    >decompress realtime).
    There were two papers in SIGCOMM'97 that discussed the benefits of
    compressing HTTP data.  An internet draft to describe protocol
    support for both compression and delta-encoding (a form of
    compression that uses state from a previous version of a resource)
    is in preparation.  Jeff Mogul, of DECWRL, is the primary
    "instigator" on this.

Actually, to answer Simon's question: HTTP/1.1 already does support
optional compression at several phases of the interaction.  I believe
that it provides all of what Simon was asking about.  (This is true
of the most recent Internet-Draft on HTTP/1.1; RFC2068 has some minor
bugs in its support for compression.)

Therefore, the Internet-draft that I am in the process of writing
(please do NOT ask me for a copy yet!) on delta-encoding says almost
nothing about compression, because this is a (mostly) solved problem.

Received on Monday, 5 January 1998 11:12:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:22 UTC