IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reference set in HPACK

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Wed, 02 July 2014 06:40 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C34A1A037A for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.652
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.652 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.651, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w5DjEUk2tDDH for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 067D21A0171 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X2ECk-0006tC-5N for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:39:42 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:39:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X2ECk-0006tC-5N@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1X2ECh-0006s9-1t for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:39:39 +0000
Received: from mail-ob0-f169.google.com ([209.85.214.169]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1X2ECf-0003cS-SG for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:39:39 +0000
Received: by mail-ob0-f169.google.com with SMTP id wp18so11835023obc.28 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=w2wu12GRp0Opl3HfkcxW+Xfoswxh4mT57OkbDCS1ZHk=; b=kKbd6L4yUtHmt4rVKjAYwRveQsW2VJ24z9SK1hQcIU77TCGGAbPMJC6QdDXoWK/B91 iAthRyeihLAV5HqA1gWzVGbypKsiMZdb1Vx2ytMv5zYkUlNgUZhqTYPx6YT/foy8C1iW QJj2uo9UOF2GhSmmFc9Rv0wN8A1c+HnIvNHSlxQFEKU2H9RVaBKtkE+4xB8KHioqkU1a s5w+cLRrsH8jv8FJQjjbLieFH9VphzHxMtYB5X9uhp9+w7Fv5P6yZMvwDQlD3G7kjD4U BlbCtP0y+VlQdCydAQO0g0lDlUaNYCfHJGqV3fnd3yK5WILPBw5q3q4/EvgoOa9C97UF tdhg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.140.227 with SMTP id rj3mr21764605oeb.10.1404283152187; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.108.12 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:39:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <19403.1404282862@critter.freebsd.dk>
References: <20140702.143041.283993814131065692.kazu@iij.ad.jp> <CAP+FsNexzVzt+YV7oBeMdGrMoajbMVj1Z90XvQfaCuNMDjYdHg@mail.gmail.com> <20140702.145215.1023037072984695261.kazu@iij.ad.jp> <CAP+FsNc+xW1gKma0McrgXtPpwR0BCubHkvHhUbcHHyn1Sd6t0g@mail.gmail.com> <19403.1404282862@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:39:12 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNf=RvMaGLr2Dx+VUVwimb6+bxdEgNyV7aL2xPOiFBJcGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b2e50c07345ea04fd30267d"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.214.169; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-ob0-f169.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.687, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1X2ECf-0003cS-SG 9282fce0a589458d4b615f5ee48fc23a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reference set in HPACK
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNf=RvMaGLr2Dx+VUVwimb6+bxdEgNyV7aL2xPOiFBJcGg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/25056
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Poul--

That is orthogonal-- small data frames are necessary for latency as well,
and the impact on packetization with full DATA frames is minimal, with near
zero impact on latency.


-=R



On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> In message <
> CAP+FsNc+xW1gKma0McrgXtPpwR0BCubHkvHhUbcHHyn1Sd6t0g@mail.gmail.com>,
> Roberto Peon writes:
>
> >If the headers were regularized, with the use of a reference set, one
> could
> >imagine a reduction of 20 bytes per header.
> >With 100 elements, this is approximately 2k of data, or two packets worth.
>
> You'd save as many if not more bytes by being able to transfer the
> biggest of the 100 elements in DATA frames larger than 16383 bytes.
>
> I think it is fair to ask for some credible real-world data that shows
> reference sets making an actual difference that justifies the added
> complexity.
>
> --
> 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.
>

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status