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

Re: Cost analysis: (was: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues)

From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:51:50 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NEb8KVTAX5Hx=sYgiPWmQfnVQSvrYhUw5Ki-pgc1MdtVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>

It looks like there are many use-cases and examples that illustrate how
difficult it can be to apply a limit expressed in compressed bytes.   So
this just further convinces me that the only workable limit is one
expressed in uncompressed bytes and applied by the sender.

I also conclude that not having a limit is not really an option, because
limits do exist even if they are not declared.

So regardless of how large headers are transported, does anybody dispute
these two points?

On 20 July 2014 06:38, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> For reverse proxies in particular, the receipt of a set of headers on a
> particular IP, or with a particular host indication via SNI, the
> intermediary can know to whom the connection should be created without
> having received *any* of the headers.

Note also that h2->h2 load balancers will have less need to inspect headers
as they don't need to stick requests from the same client to the same app
server.  A clients requests will come nicely bundled in a connection


Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.
Received on Saturday, 19 July 2014 23:52:20 UTC

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