IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 23:02 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B12B011E80BF for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:02:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.433
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.433 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.165, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BVFH3o6PL6T8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:02:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C10E11E80D1 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyVni-0004w9-V9 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:01:43 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:01:42 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyVni-0004w9-V9@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 1TyVnX-0004uL-CN for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:01:31 +0000
Received: from mail-lb0-f182.google.com ([209.85.217.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1TyVnV-0002sV-NR for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 23:01:31 +0000
Received: by mail-lb0-f182.google.com with SMTP id gg6so7568734lbb.13 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:01:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=XUaAMFPmm2KffDt7dJnGp25WFpifHUeDLcG4C9CZHZc=; b=arFgu4uWT4k1/fKqR14wfimBJta78ek5n8/u66sQtvU6EiLJhugkp7ERezldzDxy1Y ivotQHVfmVuu38jVHzTGt7QLMpGzfB5TpPPHuzlrotqdvlDFzvhahBSD0X5ztehbMXmL 3/kVajPBXlLuXhpElCXncExKFF3xszwHMYgQK37ip6aPft2eZF1A7QWcZw41Tria7O3x b7sszQAiL898d0dz2WnmHICYPcnKO0EqD9be1uQ45mVk5/uEmYpDzl9ilv9s3jJB0WHE fnVv7Ki08FcUB2n/ImRSQVf1pJqGyrzPsETrh4m83Zq7z4DaAE39AJlT4R/a8L5qdPgB NKXQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.11.33 with SMTP id n1mr1455866lbb.18.1359068463116; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.5 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:01:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOjVZxAZe3Rh=kZe80xFBEJ3+QtiVJm2UpP14DAsOrB35Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwgTSw05QLUspAbAyRSWfd8j27fhwPiDSF_TaD8LevftBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEPLt=GkO575MfCi2aW4X+w40CzOVB05Z1+_rmLMXXSpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhJvSXgPzdqv2GscD-mfR4O7R_bba5JnAbdmP+uR+6SYA@mail.gmail.com> <510155E3.5020208@gmx.de> <CAMm+LwhCtd-m5uJnv+vcTTq9WcR3bEDQndV2cZqQE1ApNasCXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh3uP228QKjMwtTT2QQb9ypijdHPY-CkZF36j6DuTH4+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgqYmwomf_3XFmqkS9bLTCEAaTt=f9bFuqhTfFzjFk3AQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYj3rDUQQ4crdyJrun=2-MwOGQ32qRfv5oJKrx=JciqOCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhbOnCHCp7fKeG6QLKcdoYhAXcL1nkW6220+9xb-W5Gyw@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111990734@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CAP+FsNfB2WPkMTtjzVeJbuQPrz_srRm8ReGnx4WQi4LGmJ2Xzw@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC3027721119908B4@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CAP+FsNe5hOQ=j7VGfUhfYUAj6p8dYiDE6hATtkUwahSi-89mJA@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+Lwja9+LMwH8jdKYJqTheGKAHmWX+bCGkVUz3ocMKnjn1HQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAP+FsNfAfdP3_0oZpozYr-+xaCpVUgS28uKXM1uG9VKOL9br8Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOjVZxAZe3Rh=kZe80xFBEJ3+QtiVJm2UpP14DAsOrB35Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:01:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNfaxDAX5DtQJaHVLxDZmo6bYL1ORVWRFOvGx3KXffE6hg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e0cb4efe2a30f8323004d410c8f3"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.217.182; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-lb0-f182.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.495, 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 1TyVnV-0002sV-NR a8cc830250792c69ee05b8009cae08e2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNfaxDAX5DtQJaHVLxDZmo6bYL1ORVWRFOvGx3KXffE6hg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16196
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>

Being one of the people who had to write mechanisms to make Google
reliable, I have the same concerns. That is why all of the features have
the ability to reduce stored state to zero, and also why I end up being
confused.
With really tiny devices, the size of the default dictionary is arguable
problematic given the code storage space. Otherwise, however, I don't know
that I could do substantially better--- the new compressor was designed
with proxies explicitly in mind, after all (the same to be said about the
flow control proposal that Will posted).

-=R


On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you worried about devices with extremely limited code-space/memory?
>
> Or extreme load.  Yes, I am.  If memory pressure on servers and middle
> boxes results in higher connection turnover then we might well still
> have a problem.
>
> Nico
> --
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email