- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:59:22 +1000
- To: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 16 Jul 2014, at 4:54 pm, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: > On 16 July 2014 03:31, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> What do people think of this proposal? >> >> So far, my reading of the WG is that we want to get rid of the reference set, and are just talking about the details of how to do so. > > Myself and a few others are hesitating here. Roberto and Johnny have > both suggested that they believe the reference set _is_ helpful, and I > believe Johnny is collecting data to prove the point. I'd like to be > forward-looking where we can, so I'm inclined to want to wait a week > or so to see what data Johnny can collect. > > Is that problematic from the perspective of our timetable? Last we heard from him on this AFAIK was: > It would still be interesting to do, but only if there's honest engagement and buy-in from the list. Setting up something like this takes time, and is not compatible with the rate-of-change in arguments we're seeing on the list lately. and then: > The core metric of interest seems to be the compression performance (aggregated byte-length ratio) of a delta encoder + Huffman. We can provide separate ratios for an encoder with and without the reference set. > > This should hopefully inform the question before us, but is of little utility for future experimentation with compressors. That's unfortunate, but I think it's just the trade-off for getting good coverage. Johnny, would you be able to provide any indication in a short time frame, or are we talking about something longer-term? -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2014 06:59:50 UTC