- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 08:58:55 +1100
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
"Bikeshed" was put in the title with an eye towards the field name choice, but I can see now that *this* WG wants to do more. I think in -01 I'll: - Make it an integer number of kbytes - Explicitly call it a best-effort estimate (and that might be a seed for a name?) - Explicitly prohibit it from being used for message framing (just in case some proxy decides to use it for forward Content-Length or something) Anything else? > On 20 Mar 2020, at 3:25 am, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > > -------- > In message <20200319161130.GA19209@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 03:53:32PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>> We could make it explictly fuzzy, by definting it as kilobytes rounded down ? >> >> I think it's an excellent idea, which even goes in the direction of >> reducing the on-wire bytes. And given todays connections speeds, if we >> use it only for progress bars it could even represent megabytes rounded >> to the nearest. Less than 0.5 will usually not take more than a few >> seconds and not deserve showing an accurate progress bar. > > I thought about that, but I know of applications where traffic is sorted > in "small", "medium" and "huge", where "small" is significantly less than > a megabyte, so I think the units should in the kilobytes rather than > megabytes range. Just to throw a number out there: Smaller than 32k. > > -- > 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. -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 19 March 2020 21:59:16 UTC