IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 19:02 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 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92F5A21F84B2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:02:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=2.850, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1k6CBKSgPkN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:02:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2F0321F8497 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:02:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyS3U-0002OW-8B for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:01:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:01:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyS3U-0002OW-8B@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyS3O-0002M4-Ll for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:01:38 +0000
Received: from caiajhbdccah.dreamhost.com ([208.97.132.207] helo=homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <nico@cryptonector.com>) id 1TyS3K-00010R-Is for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 19:01:38 +0000
Received: from homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C08BE508063 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=LdPK+KBQGVB0+KZj4xHTe248dqM=; b=r9TEM7PM/iA wVOfTqtnzIEh2WMpR8I1vC313r/n+h03igqcuRRwzNlu65Ir7Iv3eg6Ru0aDj+aa ubep8bfr5hJx9R7nslKmrJd/YZsbdG8fmsny5u69wRvlW1PIuTM82XajCc89M+eC UTafqrVJHVHZ0wsjc6F44pxypLXvlchY=
Received: from mail-wi0-f181.google.com (mail-wi0-f181.google.com [209.85.212.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6916F5080D3 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f181.google.com with SMTP id hq4so767457wib.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:01:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.80.230 with SMTP id u6mr4830932wix.20.1359054072114; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:01:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.217.39.133 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 11:01:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYj3rDUQQ4crdyJrun=2-MwOGQ32qRfv5oJKrx=JciqOCA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwgTSw05QLUspAbAyRSWfd8j27fhwPiDSF_TaD8LevftBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEPLt=GkO575MfCi2aW4X+w40CzOVB05Z1+_rmLMXXSpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhJvSXgPzdqv2GscD-mfR4O7R_bba5JnAbdmP+uR+6SYA@mail.gmail.com> <510155E3.5020208@gmx.de> <CAMm+LwhCtd-m5uJnv+vcTTq9WcR3bEDQndV2cZqQE1ApNasCXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh3uP228QKjMwtTT2QQb9ypijdHPY-CkZF36j6DuTH4+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgqYmwomf_3XFmqkS9bLTCEAaTt=f9bFuqhTfFzjFk3AQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYj3rDUQQ4crdyJrun=2-MwOGQ32qRfv5oJKrx=JciqOCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:01:11 -0600
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhbOnCHCp7fKeG6QLKcdoYhAXcL1nkW6220+9xb-W5Gyw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: none client-ip=208.97.132.207; envelope-from=nico@cryptonector.com; helo=homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.244, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1TyS3K-00010R-Is e34f7c8e2520b07eeb8833068867cefe
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAK3OfOhbOnCHCp7fKeG6QLKcdoYhAXcL1nkW6220+9xb-W5Gyw@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16171
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 Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:41 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org> wrote:
>> The main one is that the receiver has to have enough memory to store the
>> dictionary.
>
> I think this boils down to the argument on the other thread. Do the
> gains for keeping state outweigh the costs? Note that given Roberto's
> delta compression proposal, the sender can disable compression
> entirely, so the receiver does not need to maintain state. Browsers
> probably would not do this, due to our desire to optimize for web
> browsing speed. For web services where you control the client, you
> indeed would be able to disable compression.

IMO we need stateful compression to be absolutely optional to
implement.  (If we choose to go with stateful compression in the first
place.  I think we shouldn't.)

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email