W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:53:13 +0000
To: K.Morgan@iaea.org
cc: jgreene@redhat.com, grmocg@gmail.com, gregw@intalio.com, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <14549.1401619993@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201186D8A93@sem002pd.sg.iaea.org>, K
.Morgan@iaea.org writes:

>Could you achieve the same goal within the current spec by requiring the 
>route headers to come first and uncompressed in the first HEADERS frame of
>a stream?

Well, there's probably not much gained if they are still encrypted,
but yes, any movement towards the scheme I suggested will improve
performance.

>Are these headers you mentioned the only three proxies ever need to look at
> when forwarding requests?
>>        Host:
>>        URL sans query part  (or possibly:  URL up to first '/')
>>        (X-)Forwarded-For:

Well, proxied do the most weird things, but for the typical
load-balancer case, which is where the HTTP bandwidth is most
concentrated, those three are what's being looked at.

>What about forwarding responses back to the client? I imagine you would want
>to do a similar thing. Same headers?

In general load-balancers don't look at the response.  If they do it's
typically a very simple check of the status code, so that retries
can be done on failures (>= 400 or something)

-- 
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 Sunday, 1 June 2014 10:53:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:26 UTC