W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:01:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfaxDAX5DtQJaHVLxDZmo6bYL1ORVWRFOvGx3KXffE6hg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Being one of the people who had to write mechanisms to make Google
reliable, I have the same concerns. That is why all of the features have
the ability to reduce stored state to zero, and also why I end up being
confused.
With really tiny devices, the size of the default dictionary is arguable
problematic given the code storage space. Otherwise, however, I don't know
that I could do substantially better--- the new compressor was designed
with proxies explicitly in mind, after all (the same to be said about the
flow control proposal that Will posted).

-=R


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you worried about devices with extremely limited code-space/memory?
>
> Or extreme load.  Yes, I am.  If memory pressure on servers and middle
> boxes results in higher connection turnover then we might well still
> have a problem.
>
> Nico
> --
>
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 23:01:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 24 January 2013 23:01:40 GMT