- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:13:51 +0000
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In message <CABP7Rbfg6nf=qJOSAyC8mGcfDQxFmxREOqmb88_fSqiyc5Kv+Q@mail.gmail.com> , James M Snell writes: >Yeah.. um.. ignore that compression ratio, lol... I would have checked it but I have become allergic to dissecting gzip files after implementing ESI:includes on gzip'ed files in Varnish :-) >[...]so if our header encoding is compact enough without it, why spend >the additional cycles to save 20 bytes or so. Indeed. Speaking of which: I was surprised to find that the SPDY dictionary didn't contain any fodder for compressing User-Agent ? Was this future-proofing/neutrality, to avoid trademark issues or because there were no reasonable general benefit to be had ? (And what DO we do with User-Agent in HTTP/2.0, it must be possible to come up with something actually usable... ? >I am interested in hearing what further optimizations could be made to the >structure. I take it that you have read draft-tarreau-httpbis-network-friendly-00 ? It has a lot of good ideas... -- 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 Tuesday, 17 July 2012 09:14:17 UTC