W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: Header Size? Was: Our Schedule

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 10:28:19 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9728.1401532099@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAP+FsNeGtUgBNq0WN4GuYCPj0eVCm07ta6sqek=vgk3nVexBJA@mail.gmail.com>
, Roberto Peon writes:

>gzip, hpack, whatever, the issue is state management in both cases-- they
>require serialization/deserialization to be done in the same order. Putting
>things on stream zero doesn't change this-- it creates a sequence binding
>between stream zero and the other streams, and there is no guarantee that
>it wouldn't look exactly the same in terms of backreference requirements.

This is why I originally suggested that we put a "envelope" (Host:
+ non-query part of URL) on the outside of all this complexity, so
that load-balancers would not have to care about it at all.

The failure to do so, is one of the main reasons why HTTP/2 will have
limited performance potential and likely become a bottleneck.

-- 
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.
Received on Saturday, 31 May 2014 10:28:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC