Re: Reference set in HPACK

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Wed, 02 July 2014 06:12 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 2BE631B28CE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:12:18 -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 ntuMu9XxcRw4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:12:16 -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 75BFD1B28D0 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:12:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1X2DkV-0005bO-7P for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:10:31 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:10:31 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1X2DkV-0005bO-7P@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 1X2DkN-0005ZD-CU for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:10:23 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f47.google.com ([209.85.219.47]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1X2DkM-0002Ws-HO for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 06:10:23 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id n16so11716544oag.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:09:56 -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=VLf4CQyT4/ZTL1O6nMwGGWTv0j9R8bfSceXS5JVgBCQ=; b=YMbxNAb008haPrILoUMD1K5w+y/Vbhls+GI2usFSJci50+8OUJTkSh1RMOLPba9wkT I6XjR85oQBgeq6amLI81xBlOTRqE92mS2h/lgCJk50JBvD96aTMhXJJT0MZ45QfMZXaz /oSXbPPQLjgdWHIZ7WVU8X5fi8gEsUM78oNgKzEBt5L1cKHBztgIq22kEu3KwI4wPoGC yrbErnzvCwiIZpb/J16EHas38BHAz5GnV9tmMGvPZmEs1/MQgwckGKFDDo9V+rzy7ImI LWSPuX5TrRekYHetLOAvEeMXJKrGYbVrQm71qANB4MSw2vfozRj8SW9Yig2BM5xzV2ok Usyg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.182.245.164 with SMTP id xp4mr55150373obc.23.1404281396808; Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.76.108.12 with HTTP; Tue, 1 Jul 2014 23:09:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20140702.145215.1023037072984695261.kazu@iij.ad.jp>
References: <20140702.143041.283993814131065692.kazu@iij.ad.jp> <CAP+FsNexzVzt+YV7oBeMdGrMoajbMVj1Z90XvQfaCuNMDjYdHg@mail.gmail.com> <20140702.145215.1023037072984695261.kazu@iij.ad.jp>
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2014 23:09:56 -0700
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNc+xW1gKma0McrgXtPpwR0BCubHkvHhUbcHHyn1Sd6t0g@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="001a11c2b2eed2509404fd2fbd3b"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.47; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f47.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.698, 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 1X2DkM-0002Ws-HO 062a06129c2ae0166ac5e7b135dc6119
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reference set in HPACK
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNc+xW1gKma0McrgXtPpwR0BCubHkvHhUbcHHyn1Sd6t0g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/25040
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>

Kazu--

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.
With 100 elements, this is approximately 2k of data, or two packets worth.

This makes the difference between being able to use server push as a
workable optimization technique or not being able to do so since it might
require more packets/space than inlining, and thus present a disadvantage
as compared to inlining for the first, cold, pageload.

The trend is to increase the number of individual resources on a page.


Note that a single byte is used only when the number of table entries is
fairly small. This is likely to be the case for client<->server
communication, and less likely to be true for proxies.
-=R


On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Kazu Yamamoto <kazu@iij.ad.jp> wrote:

> Hi Roberto,
>
> > You're basing conclusions on today's data, instead of looking forward as
> to
> > what might happen when the set of headers sent adapts to the compression
> > method, making it significantly more likely for items in the reference
> set
> > to be emitted.
>
> If you believe that reference set is suitable for headers in the
> future, please give me such examples so that I can convince.
>
> In my understating, reference set cannot contribute for ANY headers.
> Typically an index is represented by one byte. Even if you can omit
> sending some indices, we can save just some bytes.
>
> --Kazu
>