Re: Static Table Entries

Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> Fri, 08 August 2014 01:14 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 AECEA1A0A74 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.28
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.28 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 FgNWnqF76z9K for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:14:06 -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 F32241A0535 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:14:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XFYi1-0001pI-33 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:11:05 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:11:05 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XFYi1-0001pI-33@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XFYhQ-0001mF-Rf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:10:29 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <gregw@intalio.com>) id 1XFYhP-0006dY-H4 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:10:28 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hi2so223527wib.17 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QrpXFipnkKhAyGQj7NL99//I/5rD0Fxf+hHSfDfpjWc=; b=BPNJEn9Rvpu+zYKGd3f6SuYaxoJcEggxm72dqHS7gVB4etuxlhnvW+YQG9P1l1+i9X dQvEAdsNZFJwXK/PCxtA4Uq5eGhY3glBhFxbsxO4UttCkomOgsoPtmDOhmt52L1e4/kH f+82R9oJ5PjWcjRfPUQ0aQcE3vfCDc6Ou8Z325jSavTzr0uqFCtuPJNkv3vPHUU1Afj7 NBgMoQ1Yhcp+VDKKohRTyRPnVk5dm084YyExczwKwJ65eEBM5L9EsOkGaSZyrrD74l+E oQ5lCBANti+rCqXyOJA4KBDQTnq/y7Y47/U3NulBjx932DQPWkaTwMaoRh/PsNpTd7M1 ANhA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmMWayReEGtC8XWtXinCvBjaWSlK88UQP9LG3AT6NpclRTJOWhcZFSxZ1Cby6CJecqqn3Ae
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.238.195 with SMTP id vm3mr2184402wjc.91.1407460200379; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.169.98 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 18:10:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUwrTo6-aGF8vuUmO56gRDgE1jqGr8hTwY=VWYv43uOQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <D00955B6.38F98%Robby.Simpson@GE.com> <CABkgnnVi7E3BMfYL1V3sS0Dn5WGJ2MaN1aCsxFoQmNtV4EfNog@mail.gmail.com> <D0093C76.9199%sakulkar@akamai.com> <CABkgnnUo7dsPGwEERCZZPX2Fhb3tf8FbUnwCvEfBRezWPtxmmQ@mail.gmail.com> <EB630F16-4D1B-4392-8621-A56C01D0C1FF@iaea.org> <CABkgnnUwrTo6-aGF8vuUmO56gRDgE1jqGr8hTwY=VWYv43uOQw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:10:00 +1000
Message-ID: <CAH_y2NFqUpFreMM8v4BMZwkuEuasdeCpugqsQBxgw+FkjPc2bA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: "K.Morgan@iaea.org" <K.Morgan@iaea.org>, "Kulkarni, Saurabh" <sakulkar@akamai.com>, "Simpson, Robby (GE Energy Management)" <robby.simpson@ge.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d14bc4795ee050013dd4e"
Received-SPF: permerror client-ip=209.85.212.178; envelope-from=gregw@intalio.com; helo=mail-wi0-f178.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.084, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XFYhP-0006dY-H4 a2b23c97aab751eba314a7d23bf6601e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Static Table Entries
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAH_y2NFqUpFreMM8v4BMZwkuEuasdeCpugqsQBxgw+FkjPc2bA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26568
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 8 August 2014 09:31, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 7 August 2014 15:59,  <K.Morgan@iaea.org> wrote:
> > I think we should at least keep a list (wiki page) of these micro
> optimizations so that we could discuss further if the draft doesn't make it
> out if last call for some reason.
>
> Last call doesn't mean that we are forbidden from discussing changes.
> It's not special in that regard.  It's primarily time that causes the
> threshold to be raised.  If implementations have to go back and make
> other changes, then it definitely would be easier to throw in a few
> small optimizations like this, even larger ones (like reworking the
> HPACK opcode sequences), but I predict that any change, no matter how
> small, will get some resistance.
>



I did some rough frequency analysis on the test data and came up with extra
values for:

"accept-language","en-US,en;q=0.5"
"accept-ranges","bytes"
"accept","image/png,image/*;q=0.8,*/*;q=0.5"
"age","0"
"allow","GET"
"cache-control","no-cache"
"content-disposition","attachment"
"content-encoding","gzip"
"content-language","en-US"
"content-length","0"
"content-type","image/jpeg"
"vary","Accept-Encoding"

Adding these values improved compression of the test data by 1.1%

However, removing anything that looks like linguistic imperialism and
making a few more neutral choices gives:

"accept-ranges","bytes"
"accept","*/*"
"age","0"
"allow","GET"
"cache-control","no-cache"
"content-disposition","attachment"
"content-encoding","gzip"
"content-length","0"
"content-type","application/x-javascript"
"vary","Accept-Encoding"

This still achieved 0.9% saving.

However I'd like to see some rigour applied to selecting the most frequent
value to apply, and I don't think the test data is large enough nor
representative enough for this.


So I think this is a good change to make  IFF we are breaking the protocol
for another reason, but it's probably not good enough to justify breaking
on it's own (unless someone can produce hard numbers).

So I'm happy to put this one on a list of breaking changes to make if we
are going to make breaking changes.


cheers









-- 
Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.