- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:57:04 +0000
- To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <CD1105D4-2CF7-4272-A2C0-6D219712956F@mnot.net>, Mark Nottingham wri tes: >Future consolidation of existing headers is a nice-to-have, but as >discussed quite a bit, may require some awkwardness that makes it >undesirable. My understanding was that this was a non-goal for this >work. It was my goal to at least not make it impossible. >Likewise, creating another header serialisation / compression that takes >advantage of what we do is something we should keep an eye on, but isn't >an immediate goal. Give the rapidly increasing volume of cryptographically whitened data in headers, it might be a good idea to try to steer that data towards a syntax which HPACKng/QUIC/whatever can recognize and transmit as binary, to avoid the b64+compression detour. Of course nothing prevents a compressor from speculatively looking at a substring to see if it can be transmitted more efficiently by un-b64'ing and then re-b64 it on the far side. Somebody[tm] should really simulate that... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Wednesday, 14 June 2017 16:57:35 UTC