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 19:33:06 +0000
To: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>
cc: "Jason T. Greene" <jgreene@redhat.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <16727.1401651186@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <7F1A1E55-55D4-427D-BB1B-67CE4424BE26@redhat.com>, Jason Greene writ
es:

>> The payload consists of metadata and objects
>> 
>> Metadata is the rest of the HTTP headers, which are not needed for
>> transporting HTTP, but only play a role in semantic interpretation:
>> Content-Type, Content-Encoding etc. etc.
>> 
>> Metadata and object can be compressed or encrypted how ever you like.
>
>It still has to be limited to per-frame compression, because shared 
>compression state means that a proxy must process and convert all 
>metadata. 

It could be per-transaction compression, but that amounts to pretty
much the same thing if we do our job well.

The main reason to have compression is to squeeze cookies.

I still think it is a much better strategy do away with cookies and
all their problems (privacy, legal etc.) and skip compression with
all its problems (DoS, state etc.) and get smaller headers than we
would have with cookies, compressions and all their problems.

Sanitizing User-Agent: would be the next big gain (Again: privacy
problems and all that.)

Doing a sensible static enumeration of all the RFC-headers could shave
some bytes too.

>As a server and proxy implementer I would prefer modest gains in packet 
>size that didn't sacrifice throughput already achievable in http 1.1, 
>and IMO the static tables do exactly that. I can certainly appreciate 
>that those implementing clients don't agree with this perspective, and 
>would like more.

As a proxy implementer, I think a HTTP/2.0 that cannot be processed,
at the very least as a transparent proxy splitting the stream on
Host: header, at todays COTS line-rates on todays COTS servers would
be an utter embarrasment.

8-cores, 40gbit/s -> 4x10gbit/s anyone ?

What *is* the highest rate anybody has processed HTTP/2.0 according
to the current draft anyway ?

I don't recall seing anybody brag about that yet ?


-- 
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 19:33:32 UTC

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