- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:31:34 +1200
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 19/06/2014 9:27 a.m., James M Snell wrote: > Yep. Using a variable length encoding 5 bytes is the max we would need for > all practical purposes. > > I'm all for dropping Date entirely, tho. That doesn't help us with the > other date headers, but it helps. Last-Modified and If-Modified-Since are > both great candidates for five-byte encoding. > > It's too bad the WG didn't pick up on such an obvious improvement but, oh > well I guess. > > - James How about we proxy people collude and define a proxy SETTINGS extension to turn on lots of these types of optimizations? That way we can turn around and show how slow the client->server direct traffic format is. At least until they see the light and join in. Amos > On Jun 18, 2014 1:36 PM, "Poul-Henning Kamp" wrote: > >> In message < >> CABkgnnVT8zGSiU8fDqNtiaL+f2ziBytyP_SUGyPSL2anZf546Q@mail.gmail.com> >> , Martin Thomson writes: >>> On 18 June 2014 13:17, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: >>>> In that case we should transfer the time as a POSIX time_t in the >>>> HEADERS frame. Wasting time huffman encoding dates and still >>>> using 24 bytes where 8 would be plenty is just plain stupid. >>> >>> Yeah, that was discussed and rejected, though not permanently. I >>> think that James worked out that 5 bytes was enough in the short term >>> with a little epoch tweaking. >>> >>> And yes, we are plain stupid. Think of the cost of parsing that stuff >>> as opposed to doing ntohl(). >> >> Indeed. Ascii Timestamps amount for about 30% if Varnish CPU load :-/ >> >> -- >> 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 Thursday, 19 June 2014 06:32:23 UTC