Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns

Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> Thu, 11 July 2013 12:18 UTC

Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:17:07 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UxFo3-00032A-ID@frink.w3.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_EII10jUmTz76n+tJPJVVVg)"
References: <CA+qvzFPUpcm6kUtJx+rTw8Dpp4Gtx4Bmr3XPDhjNsjchUfN9_w@mail.gmail.com> <51DE1E32.9010801@treenet.co.nz> <CA+qvzFOrZEaaXKRYeaU=_X7vmemmjybGX9xLe3=VtEh6b8Nwgw@mail.gmail.com> <51DE8435.9010103@treenet.co.nz>
In-reply-to: <51DE8435.9010103@treenet.co.nz>
Message-id: <7BD2D277-BDA4-44DF-95D5-16DADA001DF0@apple.com>
Cc: Christian Parpart <trapni@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 08:16:29 -0400
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=17.151.62.49; envelope-from=msweet@apple.com; helo=mail-out.apple.com
Subject: Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/7BD2D277-BDA4-44DF-95D5-16DADA001DF0@apple.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

Amos,

On 2013-07-11, at 6:08 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:
> ...
>> here I don't think that will be much of the case, since HTTP/2 header encoding should still be a way smaller in bytes than HTTP/1.1 and prior.
> 
> Only in compressed form. The Literal form is equivalent to non-compressed HTTP/1.1 syntax. So the bandwidth is being expanded from HTTP/2 size up to HTTP/1 size. Low input causing the relay to generate large output is the very definition of amplification.

Well, a typed encoding would still offer some modest savings, and there are alternate compression schemes that could be used that are not so stateful.

I /do/ like the idea of a start frame (request, response, push promise) before the headers...

HTTP router point-of-view concerns Christian Parpart
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Christian Parpart
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Michael Sweet
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Thomson
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Patrick McManus
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Thomson
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Mark Nottingham
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Mike Belshe
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Gábor Molnár
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Gábor Molnár
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Michael Sweet
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Christian Parpart
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Patrick McManus
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Jeff Pinner
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Thomson
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Ludin, Stephen
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns James M Snell
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Amos Jeffries
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Roberto Peon
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Yoav Nir
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Mark Delany
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Yoav Nir
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Yoav Nir
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Stephen Farrell
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Willy Tarreau
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Sam Pullara
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nicolas Mailhot
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nicolas Mailhot
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nicolas Mailhot
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Martin Nilsson
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Poul-Henning Kamp
Re: HTTP router point-of-view concerns Nico Williams