- From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:23:43 -0400
- To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Greg, I agree with your comments about HPACK, and I have made similar comments over the last year. Everyone seems to be focusing on compression as a defining, mandatory feature of HTTP/2, but as you say multiplexing and push get you most of the way there. If we leave out HPACK for 2.0 (or adopt a simpler HPACK) we can get some operational experience to determine whether further complexity is required or justified. On May 26, 2014, at 7:35 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote: > ... > I do see that HPACK can be very efficient, but I have not yet found the justification for why HTTP/2 needs to have such aggressive compression. It is very easy to make some significant gains over HTTP/1.1, so going for a less invasive compression would seam a more prudent step. My experience from SPDY is that we are going to get most of the gains from multiplexing, reduced round trips and from push. Such an aggressive compression algorithm does not seam worth the risk of reducing the take up of those other good attributes (dang - making sweeping predictive statements again). _________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair
Received on Monday, 26 May 2014 12:24:09 UTC