W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2013

Re: Explicit proxy options and defaults

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:10:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWq=up-JN7C-7rNn3ykR=uTW+P9jf1TpVJmHtTxBeweVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi>
Cc: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <synp71@live.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 10 December 2013 02:59, Ilari Liusvaara <ilari.liusvaara@elisanet.fi> wrote:
> Ted wrote:
>> If an explicit proxy can only tell a client on
>> a per destination basis that it doesn't support CONNECT, using it will mean
>> a big performance penalty much of the time.
> I don't see immediately why it would need more than 1 client-proxy RTT, which
> should be quite fast in most cases...

This is a good point.  Even where the proxy is hard to reach,
connecting to a new site at a cost of one (extra) RTT doesn't sound
like a bad thing.

> Maybe mobile environments where transmitting has big latency?

In the mobile case, assuming that you are going to continue
transmitting, that front-loaded latency is a price that is going to be
paid regardless.
Received on Tuesday, 10 December 2013 18:10:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:21 UTC