RE: Rechartering HTTPbis

Amos Jeffries wrote:
> For example, simply truncating the common header names down to 1 or 2
> bytes and moving to a better timestamp format we could meet all the
> HTTP/2.0 requirements:
>   * chop out a visible % of HTTP traffic size
>   * be syntactically incompatible with HTTP/1.x
>   * capable of trivially gatewaying 1.1-over-2.0 and vice versa
>   * with full semantic and feature equivalence
>   * and lower barriers to implementation (fingers on telnet + fewer
> bytes = win)

Given that the extreme majority of HTTP traffic is automatically
generated, typically via use of a framework, I suspect that far more
humans read HTTP messages directly than write them directly.
Consequently, fewer bytes in header names is probably more of a loss due
to the cognitive load than a win due to reduced keystrokes. It might be
chosen to reduce packet size, but shouldn't be chosen to save fingers.

And I can't believe I'm even writing this, because it's *way* too early
to start offering or debating solutions when we've hardly begun
discussing requirements.


Robert Brewer
fumanchu@aminus.org

Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 15:59:31 UTC