IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Reference set in HPACK

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Wed, 02 July 2014 06:38 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 A75941B28D9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:38:13 -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 ftZfHB1hejQy for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:38:12 -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 88AAD1B28D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:38:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X2EAL-0006Ea-T2 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:37:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:37:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X2EAL-0006Ea-T2@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 1X2EAI-0006DQ-QD for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:37:10 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.219.45]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1X2EAI-0003W0-1Z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:37:10 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o6so11909344oag.32 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:36:44 -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=PgjP3kb8NHW0D2VkamoZebAkacRomtoZkr2OhfIdZ94=; b=Rkv3QdK202QsVcojEnl49DwCC8LHGojpJVp0VoAIqnmbmaVfWq0lOJnXWKzgWIt8tK xkpbAKRM/ZDdc5T67JhvAuYdrubSxEPVf2uY4OihMnOfOZ3kKazWmXUB24bjPC43rrWy d1wCL1WkuXQ4myWcUAa75Wps/9CsfNtmLXvHj/t2BhYwLR+YsqE+n9vYn5EnpxEggaPn bYQwyfAyQ9kuVORR9r9yydC1+d8GfBzTT0Yl7ONHTO/NdojLMACI4oIDJ9QcSilLR8o1 jLCrZe9VXlM3k/p9FPMT2GpHDsbCM5lvR3TXd8yLWhl0H3g6RsuWAF11RKXN4hAyw1Lp QvLA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.76.38 with SMTP id h6mr55111174obw.8.1404283004207; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.108.12 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:36:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140702.153027.762020749800021126.kazu@iij.ad.jp>
References: <CAP+FsNexzVzt+YV7oBeMdGrMoajbMVj1Z90XvQfaCuNMDjYdHg@mail.gmail.com> <20140702.145215.1023037072984695261.kazu@iij.ad.jp> <CAP+FsNc+xW1gKma0McrgXtPpwR0BCubHkvHhUbcHHyn1Sd6t0g@mail.gmail.com> <20140702.153027.762020749800021126.kazu@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:36:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc6cbJtkucxbHCBtogqsd7sWP2T2Yz3hPxQDkSDeY1HHA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b4503caa146ca04fd301dfa"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.45; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f45.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.691, 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 1X2EAI-0003W0-1Z 745158fc800d3a275b95c08efd69af82
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reference set in HPACK
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNc6cbJtkucxbHCBtogqsd7sWP2T2Yz3hPxQDkSDeY1HHA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/25054
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>

On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 11:30 PM, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:

> Roberto,
>
> > Even a few bytes per request adds up as the number of requests go up.
> > Lets think about a page today that has 100 elements, which is something
> we
> > see today.
> > If the headers were regularized, with the use of a reference set, one
> could
> > imagine a reduction of 20 bytes per header.
>
> OK. Suppose we can save 20 bytes.
>
> > With 100 elements, this is approximately 2k of data, or two packets
> worth.
>
> I don't understand this.
>
> Each HTTP request/response is stored in its own IP packets.


This isn't correct. Implementations typically pack many requests or
responses into single packets, true even of implementations which turn
nagle off when they know that there is likely to be more data forthcoming.
-=R



> Suppose an
> HTTP request is stored in N IP packets. I don't think saving 20 bytes
> can reduce N to N - 1. So, the total number of IP packets is the same.



> --Kazu
>
>

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status