- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:49:39 -0600
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:21 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > My main concerns with this approach are (a) even tho the decoder gets to set > limits on the amount of state used, keeping that state around is still > relatively expensive compared to what we have now, and (b) keeping it in > sync with the client, server and any number of intermediaries along the path > is likely going to prove difficult at best. We need to make sure we have a > good understanding of the worst case scenario with this approach (i.e. > nothing stored in context anywhere along the path). If the compression is hop-by-hop then there's no synchronization issues. But then middleboxes may have to decompress and always re-compress (even if the headers are left unmodified) in each direction. In general I'd much rather not have connection-oriented state at all, not even if it were transparent to HTTP. Nico --
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 17:50:06 UTC