- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 19:09:52 +0100
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
* Willy Tarreau wrote: >The other difference is the use of the faster adler32 checksum in deflate >instead of crc32 in gzip, so *if* we want to mandate something, deflate >is cheaper for both ends. That said, I'm still very concerned that we >want to mandate such antique bit-oriented algorithms which are extremely >slow and memory invasive while we have many much better ones such as >snappy, lz4, quicklz and I-don't-know-what which are much more friendly >for both ends and better suited for the 21th century's machines and >networks. I expect we will make sure through appropriate specification and testing that we can deploy new compression schemes much more easily than it is for HTTP/1.1, so I am not too concerned about that. Anyway, there are 3 formats here, RFC 1950 "zlib" is the format with Adler32 checksums; raw DEFLATE is RFC 1951 without checksum (and the third is RFC 1952 "gzip"). -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 18:10:12 UTC