- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:20:06 +1000
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Sam Pullara <spullara@gmail.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi PHK, This has been brought up a number of times. I think what we need is a concrete proposal *with* a detailed plan for a workable transition to the new mechanism -- which seems to be the (or at least one) sticking point whenever this comes up. Otherwise, it's amounts to "it'd be nice if the world worked this way..." Cheers, On 12/07/2013, at 4:58 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > In message <092D65A8-8CB7-419D-B6A4-77CAE40A0026@gmail.com>, Sam Pullara writes > : > >> How sure are we that the entire idea of header compression isn't a bad >> idea? > > I'm entirely convinced it is a bad idea. > > The main gain that can be had from it, is compressing cookies and > that issue should be solved by moving the cookies onto the server, > indexed by a client provided session-id. > > -- > 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. > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Friday, 12 July 2013 07:20:47 UTC