RE: Header Serialization Discussion

[RUELLAN Herve <[e-mail]>]

I did some statistics on prefix sharing to find which header do most benefit from it.

==== Requests ====
:path                              :  96977
referer                            :  26060
cookie                             :  23081
:host                              :   5365
==== Responses ====
expires                            :  45442
last-modified                      :  44312
date                               :  42512
cache-control                      :  22096
via                                :  20106
content-length                     :   5603
set-cookie                         :   5337
server                             :   4019
age                                :   3845
content-type                       :   3675

For each header, the cumulated size of the shared prefixes is shown.

For responses, a large part of these headers can be optimized using a typed encoding. However, prefix sharing could still be useful for the remaining ones. For requests, none of the headers can be optimized with some typed encoding (except maybe the ":host" header).

Hervé.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrien W. de Croy [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: mardi 16 avril 2013 01:44
> To: James M Snell; RUELLAN Herve
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Header Serialization Discussion
> 
> 
> 
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "James M Snell" <[e-mail]>
> >On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM, RUELLAN Herve
> ><[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >>>
> >>>    - The true utility of the common prefix length mechanism is
> >>>questionable.
> >>>  Aside from the potential security risks, I questioning just how
> >>>effective it's
> >>>  going to be in practice. (What header fields do we expect to
> >>>actually use it in
> >>>  practice?)
> >>
> >>  Common prefixes are very efficient for URLs: the paths often share
> >>some common part at their beginnings. They are also useful for other
> >>type of data such a date and integers, but these could be optimized
> >>using typed codecs.
> >>
> >
> >I generally prefer the typed codecs for dates and integers. I'm
> >struggling to see what, beyond URLs, the prefixes will be useful for,
> >really. I mean, I get the theory, I understand their use, but I'm just
> >not convinced how often it will be practical outside of the request
> >URI.
> 
> Referer as well
> 
> 
> 
> Adrien
> 
> >
> >
>