- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 10:10:10 -0800
- 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