W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: #282: Recommend minimum sizes for protocol elements

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 07:12:43 +0000
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
cc: Mark Nottingham <Mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <61228.1304320363@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <20110502064055.GK10529@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:

>> PS: Is it just me or are large pointless HTTP-headers an indicator of
>> mobile devices where users pay for bandwidth ?
>
>It may be just you :-)

Check the headers from a device rhyming with "Jack&Terry" :-)

It may be that the headers are added in a land-side proxy, but
they are somewhat obese still.

>BTW this makes me think that there are 3 request headers which are
>responsible for something like 80% of the upstream bandwidth :
>  - User-Agent
>  - Cookie
>  - Referer

One of the more amusing ways to bust caches is to include "Vary:
User-agent" in a response.

One would think that there would be two identical browsers on the
planet but I guess we're all individualists in that respect.

I think that we should recommend that clients not send
a U-A header at all, to enourage servers to DTRT with respect
to content portablity.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 2 May 2011 07:13:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:40 GMT