- 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>
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