W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: Performance implications of Bundling and Minification on HTTP/1.1

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:36:56 +0000
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: (wrong string) ™ˆ™˜Œ) <willchan@chromium.org>, Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Howard Dierking <howard@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <68245.1340696216@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <9A91F932-2F1C-4931-AD0E-8A2A4CE0A2A4@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri
tes:

>> Even if used right (one cryptosigned session-identifier, all actual
>> data stored serverside) it has the sideeffect of blanket disabling
>> caching.
>>
>> HTTP/2.0 should do better.
>
>I have a hard time seeing how that's in the current scope of discussion.
>
>Part of the reason that this sort of thing is out of scope is that it's
>a big rat hole, and the more we take on redesigning, the less likely
>we'll be able to ship something and have it deployed.

Rule #1 in design: Always make it easier for people to do the right thing.

HTTP/2.0 should provide a session-concept which makes it easier to
do the right thing.

If we do that right, cookies will die in their own time.

-- 
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 Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:37:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 June 2012 07:37:36 GMT