- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2013 15:26:35 -0700
- To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
On 22 October 2013 11:11, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote: > FWIW, I experimented with an alternative to the existing > set-cookie/cookie mechanism that used an extension frame type with > it's own isolated compressed header block and typed codecs and > achieved a roughly 40-70% improvement (depending on cookie content) in > compression ratio over the current cookie crumbling approach. You are describing just one potential solution to the problem. You'll note that the issue doesn't make a statement about how the problem is solved, just that we need to determine whether we need a solution, and - if so - what that solution looks like. > Personally, I'd much rather -1 the cookie crumbling as a premature > optimization and explore alternative approaches later on once we have > a better defined extension model. We decided to talk about extensions in Vancouver. But your -1 presupposes that you need an extension frame (and not a modification to a header block, for instance.
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2013 22:27:02 UTC