W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: WiSH: A General Purpose Message Framing over Byte-Stream Oriented Wire Protocols (HTTP)

From: Takeshi Yoshino <tyoshino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 03:12:52 +0900
Message-ID: <CAH9hSJZcGui08=DivN9vynKejvNFy+RYtRDYDnd6U6gxyX3UgQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu>
Cc: Costin Manolache <costin@gmail.com>, Wenbo Zhu <wenboz@google.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:55 AM, Loïc Hoguin <essen@ninenines.eu> wrote:

> On 10/28/2016 08:41 PM, Costin Manolache wrote:
>
>> Current overhead is 2 bytes if frame is up to 125 bytes long - which I
>> think it's not very common,
>> 4 bytes for up to 64k, and 10 bytes for anything larger.
>> IMHO adding one byte - i.e. making it fixed 5-byte, with first as is,
>> and next 4 fixed length would
>> be easiest to parse.
>>
>
> Is making it easy (or easier) to parse even a concern anymore?
>
> Considering the number of agents and servers already supporting Websocket,
> the numerous libraries for nearly all languages and the great
> autobahntestsuite project validating it all, reusing the existing code is a
> very sensible solution.
>
>
Yeah, I've been having similar feeling regarding cost for parser/encoder
implementation though I might be biased.


> There are obviously too many options to encode and each has benefits -
>> my only concern was
>> that the choice of 1, 2, 8 bytes for length may not match common sizes.
>>
>> ( in webpush frames will be <4k ).
>>
>
> --
> Loïc Hoguin
> https://ninenines.eu
>
Received on Friday, 28 October 2016 18:13:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 28 October 2016 18:13:47 UTC