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

Re: 1xx response semantics

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 13:36:09 +1200
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5af14fa099bc2ebe0e7e7081c340ee83@treenet.co.nz>
 On Tue, 5 Jul 2011 17:30:18 -0700, Brian Pane wrote:
> Thus the aggressive implementation performs 1xRTT faster in the best
> case.  Yes, it wastes upstream bandwidth in the worst case, because 
> it
> ends up sending all but one of the requests twice.  But for a typical
> web browser issuing a series of GETs, upstream bandwidth is an
> abundant resource and network round trips are expensive, so I'd 
> rather
> spend bandwidth less efficiently in the worst case to save on round
> trips in the best case.

 Please have some consideration for those of us who still live with ADSL 
 and satellite connections (or heaven forbid, 56K). Where upstream 
 bandwidth is the overall limiting bottlneck.

Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2011 01:37:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:10:58 UTC