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

Re: Review: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00.txt

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 08:41:29 +0100
Message-ID: <4F4DD6A9.3050101@gmx.de>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
CC: patrick mcmanus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 2012-02-29 08:24, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> ...
> I get your point, but as I said to Mike, saving space on *existing* HTTP
> implementations with compressions might have been the only way of getting
> to that point. But when redesigning HTTP we should address the issues that
> caused compression to be introduced.
>
> For instance, we currently lack session-oriented headers : over a
> multiplexed connection, we should be able to send requests from
> various agents at the same time and isolate them in "channels". We
> could then send a number of headers only once per channel. Cookies
> certainly are session-oriented. User-agent too. Accept headers too.
 > ...

No, Accept headers depend on context.

The biggest gain with respect to Accept seems to not to send it at all 
when it does not matter, which should apply to the majority of requests.

> Host maybe. By doing so, we could simply state that session headers
> are valid for all the requests of a given channel in a connection.
> Instead of sending these headers to the compression lib and relying
> on it to deduplicate them, you just send them once with the proper
> type.

With that we loose the ability to inspect messages in isolation. Maybe 
that's acceptable, but the downsides should be considered.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 07:42:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:56 GMT