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
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).


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 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:09 UTC