W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2015

Re: comments about draft-ietf-httpbis-header-compression

From: Jyrki Alakuijala <jyrki@google.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 16:35:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAPapA7Q9yN1dF8T-kzv2a+3ZrNZOUoSPc7JreqBo4T0RrX+=Og@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
If the goal is to just make an algorithm that can work with a static
entropy code with a static dictionary and no LZ77 outside the static
dictionary, the current format (deflate) needs no changes. Deflate supports
all these concepts. You only need a new encoder -- although zlib with
setting a dictionary and running it with quality == 1 is a pretty close
match already, only the static entropy coding is missing then.

Was HPACK ever benchmarked against using deflate in such configuration?
Would you accept help in setting up such an experiment?

Note, that with a static dictionary I mean that we would generate a single
deflate dynamic dictionary from a header corpus and always encode all data
with that -- I don't refer to the static Huffman mode in deflate.


On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 7:52 PM, Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The goal of HPACK was never to produce ideal compression, just competent
> compression not vulnerable to known issues. Some people do want to attempt
> to
> use/create a far more efficient codec here, but it's now accepted to be
> outside of
> the initial scope. What could be very well received is an HTTP/2 extension
> to
> allow negotiation of alternate header compression methods. This would allow
> actual experimentation in an effort to find the most ideal route(s).
>
>
> Dave
>
Received on Thursday, 1 January 2015 15:36:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:42 UTC