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

RE: Fragmentation for headers: why jumbo != continuation.

From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:19:24 +0000
To: <grmocg@gmail.com>, <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: <jgraettinger@chromium.org>, <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0356EBBE092D394F9291DA01E8D28EC201187F0F2D@SEM002PD.sg.iaea.org>
On Monday,14 July 2014 11:06 grmocg@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>>
>> If the backend compresses without relying on the state it can (ie: static
>> set and huffman all the way)
>>
>> It obviously gives inferior compression, but it will work.
>
> True, though not likely useful.
> -=R

Perhaps not useful to Google.

But I think Static+Huff will be an attractive option to minimal implementations that don't want to worry about shared state.

Furthermore, my understanding has been that the primary purpose of header compression was for clients to stuff as many requests as possible into the initial TCP window.  Header compression on replies is likely to be in the noise.

-keith

This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Monday, 14 July 2014 09:23:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 30 March 2016 09:57:09 UTC