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

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: イアンフェッティ <ifette@google.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:26:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAF4kx8dCw=68tOLGUL_pnkDhva18Amp48FqDw26zHr5spapCmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
I am not sure what "easy" means. Easy to implement? Both are
straightforward enough. Easy to debug? Meh. Our goal should be performance
for billions of users, not the convenience of many orders of magnitude less.
On Mar 31, 2012 10:04 AM, "Willy Tarreau" <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 07:34:47AM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <20120331073004.GN14039@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
> >
> > >> For instance, if header compression is optional, but common UAs will
> use
> > >> it by default, it *will* be implemented.
> >
> > I think for a facility like compression, it would be prefectly justified
> > to make it a "default-on" feature, which may cost a RTT to disable for
> > clients which don't grok it.
>
> I have no issue with that provided it's cheap. I'd like to note that the
> additional RTT happens only if it's not supported by the server, so that
> the client's request is not understood. If we make compression cheap enough
> for both ends, as we proposed as well as Roy proposed in Waka (which looks
> more advanced BTW), then there might not be any reason not to support it
> and it would be even easier.
>
> Willy
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 08:26:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT