IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [hybi] preliminary WebSockets compression experiments

John Tamplin <jat@google.com> Fri, 23 April 2010 23:30 UTC

Return-Path: <jat@google.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B81E03A682F for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -104.343
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-104.343 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.633, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xEKIC8sfrotd for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98B283A67B2 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:30:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.85]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3NNTsVl001143 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:29:54 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1272065394; bh=I/6wMGCdvZKMGaAe+dqKciRjDmo=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:From:Date:Message-ID:Subject: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=eaX6GY2FIT4X2DT5wu0+/I/Gf3MgoHsMIWDTRYsEZtSH1UM0WR6STPnsBgIZNHMbN Fjtf6zxqVf+JgmYThHB/Q==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id: subject:to:cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; b=nzzxt+EIPikzpHe2fCobPw7fnSI6KcEFnFKFPfDqEI8lyisd2Fos9D+8LUGDZSj08 k/tBGhmV0qk7oDRrwK5HA==
Received: from gyg4 (gyg4.prod.google.com [10.243.50.132]) by wpaz21.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3NNTXwa024776 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:29:54 -0700
Received: by gyg4 with SMTP id 4so5140216gyg.28 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.151.93.17 with SMTP id v17mr673983ybl.344.1272065393127; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:29:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.117.30 with HTTP; Fri, 23 Apr 2010 16:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <y2nad99d8ce1004231620t7772f401ia2e5cf703038efdb@mail.gmail.com>
References: <q2z3f94964f1004231247zc7b60dc3l5fbb4748d129c3c@mail.gmail.com> <z2o2a10ed241004231448l7a63e329p98e04fbe1a750539@mail.gmail.com> <z2w3f94964f1004231511u57f0d702z78e582b5481a2877@mail.gmail.com> <v2oad99d8ce1004231523jcd948913g3606dfc340a9d1a0@mail.gmail.com> <q2v3f94964f1004231533n82ad655bucf2eadc2a5ca89e4@mail.gmail.com> <i2lad99d8ce1004231545u72b35a5dj57ec77633b88d744@mail.gmail.com> <o2s3f94964f1004231600tad127bf6l51acca8bbe933d7c@mail.gmail.com> <y2nad99d8ce1004231620t7772f401ia2e5cf703038efdb@mail.gmail.com>
From: John Tamplin <jat@google.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 19:29:33 -0400
Message-ID: <q2j3f94964f1004231629t31ce8c1axd227ccdc074188d3@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000e0cd3559ae370120484efcd1f"
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: hybi@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [hybi] preliminary WebSockets compression experiments
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:30:06 -0000

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Roberto Peon <fenix@google.com> wrote:

> It is difficult to mandate something which is not invented yet :) You could
> still negotiate other compression. I'm just saying that it is good to always
> have a fallback compression option (e.g. gzip) that you can rely to be
> implemented, and need not be negotiated.
>

Well, I would not object to having compression required in the spec, but I
think it may be difficult to get enough support to make that happen and that
isn't the fight I am trying to fight at the moment -- I just want to get
compression in the spec at all :).

Also, what about very low-end devices -- is it really a good idea to require
them to support compression?  Granted, what constitutes a low-end device
these days is rapidly moving up, but still I could imagine some
microcontroller wanting to use WebSockets to talk to a server.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email