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

Re: SPDY Header Frames

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:13:51 +0000
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <62819.1342516431@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CABP7Rbfg6nf=qJOSAyC8mGcfDQxFmxREOqmb88_fSqiyc5Kv+Q@mail.gmail.com>
, James M Snell writes:

>Yeah.. um.. ignore that compression ratio, lol...

I would have checked it but I have become allergic to dissecting
gzip files after implementing ESI:includes on gzip'ed files in
Varnish :-)

>[...]so if our header encoding is compact enough without it, why spend
>the additional cycles to save 20 bytes or so.

Indeed.

Speaking of which:  I was surprised to find that the SPDY dictionary
didn't contain any fodder for compressing User-Agent ?

Was this future-proofing/neutrality, to avoid trademark issues or
because there were no reasonable general benefit to be had ?

(And what DO we do with User-Agent in HTTP/2.0, it must be possible
to come up with something actually usable... ?

>I am interested in hearing what further optimizations could be made to the
>structure.

I take it that you have read draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00 ?

It has a lot of good ideas...

-- 
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, 17 July 2012 09:14:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 July 2012 09:14:23 GMT