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

Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 07:18:56 +0000
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <23664.1405840736@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAH_y2NEb8KVTAX5Hx=sYgiPWmQfnVQSvrYhUw5Ki-pgc1MdtVA@mail.gmail.com>
, Greg Wilkins writes:

>It looks like there are many use-cases and examples that illustrate how
>difficult it can be to apply a limit expressed in compressed bytes.   So
>this just further convinces me that the only workable limit is one
>expressed in uncompressed bytes and applied by the sender.

This would be bad-ish for speed, it forces all proxies to always decompress
(or ignore the limit and hope).

>I also conclude that not having a limit is not really an option, because
>limits do exist even if they are not declared.

Agree.


-- 
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, 20 July 2014 07:19:18 UTC

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