Re: Comments on HTTP draft [of 23 Nov 1994]

> Looking at IMS on a packet by packet basis, in the presence of
> possibly large headers greater than 512 bytes, having the client
> cancel will save 2 packets in the best case, and be no worse in the
> worst case. I sent a message on tis to www-talk during chicago with
> more analysis. my hands aren't up to recreating it at the moment,
> and I think the message dissapeared in transit. i'll see if i can
> find it again.

Well, did you monitor the impact on the server's TCP kernel when that
is constantly happening?  Basically what you're suggesting is very
ugly anyway, and I don't like it one bit even if it wasn't expensive
for the network.  Gee, it's a few lines of code to do it cleanly.
It's like smashing your car on a signpost because you don't feel like
hitting the brakes.

-- Cheers, Ari --

Received on Friday, 2 December 1994 12:54:34 UTC