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: Sun, 01 Jun 2014 10:59:05 +0000
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
cc: K.Morgan@iaea.org, jgreene@redhat.com, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <14594.1401620345@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAP+FsNeS8wEbHz6zJnvJRNgJ+hneznC29zzJg_WZk3ApL-iiQQ@mail.gmail.com>
, Roberto Peon writes:

>Poul's proposal to put routing info at the front pre-supposes that all
>proxies use the same information for routing.

No it doesn't "pre-suppose".

It *optimizes* for the most common and highest-performance-pressure
use case, so that we have some chance of taking a 40gb/s or 1tb/s
firehose and split it out to a multitude of more manageable streams,
without holding state.

If a proxy wants to examine more fields than what is in the
route-header, it's free to do so, but will incur whatever complexity
and overhead any compression and/or encryption carries.

But I will grant you that putting the method (GET/PUT etc) in there
would make sense.

-- 
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 Sunday, 1 June 2014 10:59:28 UTC

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