- From: Roy Fielding <fielding@beach.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 1995 17:37:24 -0400
- To: Dave Kristol <dmk@allegra.att.com>
- Cc: http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> > The advantages that the one-byte packet-size has is that it takes up > > a minimal amount of space in the stream of bits to the transfer and > > is trivial for any system to produce or consume. Allowing larger > > packets means we have to use decimal (with the additional CRLF delimiters) > > or hope that everyone remembers to read the number in network byte order. > >I acknowledge a small space improvement (see below). I wouldn't rank >it as "onorous". I think "network byte order" is a red herring -- you >would be converting a decimal number to binary. That is an "or", as in we could send the number using a binary integer if the integer was restricted to network-byte-order interpretation, but implementations are notorious for screwing that up in spite of the specs. >Here is a comparison of the two for selected message sizes. (Please That is a useful comparison for data transfer overhead (thanks), but what we really need is a comparison of processing overhead, taking into account the vagaries of TCP socket reads/writes. Keep it coming .... .......Roy
Received on Monday, 24 July 1995 14:38:57 UTC