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

Re: Large Frame Proposal

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 23:02:29 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <78639.1404774149@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAP+FsNcxaLmfDcJc_ANzqpN-ja-2mzaOQKYvJ2rmcs_OX0kS7g@mail.gmail.com>, Roberto Peon wri
tes:

>And what if you're forwarding to another multiplexing proxy, and only then to a server?
>Which limit applies to which request?

Simple: You always respect the one your peer tells you.

Your peer may be a proxy that needs your elephantine Kerberos Cookie
but does not forward it to the server.

Or it may have a better compression state with the server and be
able to squeeze your header-set through.

It might even be in cohorts with the server (ie: CDN) and strip out
most of the headers that your browser needlessly spits out, before
forwarding a much smaller request to the distant server over a thin
slow pipe.

You almost invariably end up worse by trying to second-guess the proxy.

>It gets complicated and unuseful [...]

No, it's simple, and I just showed you three valuable use-cases.


-- 
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 Monday, 7 July 2014 23:02:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC