- From: Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management) <robby.simpson@ge.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 13:40:13 +0000
- To: "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>, "RUELLAN Herve" <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
- CC: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "HTTP Working Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Jeff Pinner <jpinner@twitter.com>
On 10/15/14, 9:10 AM, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com> wrote: >On 10/15/14, 7:31 AM, "RUELLAN Herve" <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr> wrote: > > >>For responses, there are also two: "date" and "via". Their impact is >>roughly the same, and significant only for 1K or 2K dynamic tables. >>Keeping or removing them depends on the tradeoff we want to make. For a >>generic web usage, keep them to gain a small compaction increase, for a >>more versatile usage, remove them to reduce the size of the static table. > >"date" is an interesting example. It is a MUST unless an accurate clock >is available (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-7.1.1.2), yet it >is only 4 characters with a very dynamic value. > >As I come from an embedded perspective, every bit counts and since this is >a MUST, I would suggest we keep it. But this is not a strong opinion. *unavailable
Received on Wednesday, 15 October 2014 13:40:49 UTC