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 15:04:48 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNcbPPcqJAc5FOJogsnBDQ41eg-=XAiYSi6Mfy3-j1eQ4Q@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>
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> I mean, we have spent a great deal of effort over the last couple of
> decades to minimize state in general, in TCP TCBs in particular, and
> so on.  We've done that for a reason.
> Also, there had better be a bound to stateful compression state size,
> and therefore, deterministic synchronization or a synchronization
> protocol (which would... add latency).

There is a bound, and the receiver (likely the server or proxy) gets to
decide what it is.

> It's not at all obvious to me that stateful compression is a good
> idea.  It is clear that only stateful compression can do something
> about values that get repeated a lot, like cookies and URL prefixes,
> but I'm not sure that's worth the trouble.

Is saving seconds on page-load times worth the trouble? I ask because that
is what we've seen in experiments...

> Nico
> --
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 23:05:15 UTC

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