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

RE: Some general SPDY feedback / questions

From: Manger, James H <James.H.Manger@team.telstra.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 14:01:36 +1000
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
CC: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <255B9BB34FB7D647A506DC292726F6E114F7D188DD@WSMSG3153V.srv.dir.telstra.com>
> Another example... I've been exploring the theoretical possibility of using spdy framing to provide an alternative to multipart/* packaging... imagine the following response...
>
> SYN_REPLY(
>   id=1, 
>  :status=200, 
>  :version=2.0)
> HEADERS (
>  id=1, 
>  Content-Type: text/plain, 
>  Content-Length: 5)
> DATA (id=1, "abcde")
> HEADERS (
>  id=1, 
>  Content-Integrity: 9b9af6945c95f1aa302a61acf75c9bd6, 
>  Content-Type: text/plain, 
>  Content-Length: 5)
> DATA (id=1, "fghij")
> HEADERS (
>   flags: fin,
>   Content-Integrity: d2d048a734af96bf0b7b1b24a431814a)
>
> Yes, this is a change to existing HTTP semantics, but this kind of optimization is definitely interesting... and not entirely insane.


Doesn't this badly clash with your desire to send trailer in later HEADERS? When does HEADERS introduce a new part and when does it just provide more metadata for the current part?

The PUSH mechanism might be a good alternative to multipart/* packaging. Make the reply a list of URIs of the parts, and push each part.

--
James Manger
Received on Thursday, 19 July 2012 04:02:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 July 2012 04:02:16 GMT