Re: [hybi] Impact of mandatory chunking (was Re: Background info: Properties of sendfile())

Jack Moffitt <jack@collecta.com> Fri, 06 August 2010 21:34 UTC

Return-Path: <metajack@gmail.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 639473A67A4 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.958
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.019, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622]
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 HbJKmqu8E0t8 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:34:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E692C28C277 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qwe5 with SMTP id 5so5836278qwe.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=4BTqN/U+bUEnC35gRMXySG+6nWze16+yJof6+Upd33Y=; b=fIpMMgCbaxIVJdImTMoKmF2TOwlMmIQq+pH/FnBxHmopprnKQDL5Dx8obPeFJVXX1t ZEQ5arweIT0uRO9abwidNDN8wCEauhAzA850PgEg717ow6FO+Nb7+7fVApSvE6Y5LzQn zSlTuRIaBcJH3dPcEVrw5zIOYKMGxPFwDCJjw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=a8Z7vUUNFThXfDXfu9cuM+N3uBd5FM7YYuG80upgze0LiNIYIS//vIYPiPtmqH21Bd uFj+c+WJeNex3JdMUv0UaTwLX63y0lJNhaXiBIAaVYlNiR7w4soC7zpbrlEOZFQjWNlD WMyc2COmswES4+/gIDKBm2Cv4QFBlCEhMuCG4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.54.134 with SMTP id q6mr6366182qag.377.1281129251343; Fri, 06 Aug 2010 14:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: metajack@gmail.com
Received: by 10.229.18.147 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:14:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <F6D37A7E-C176-4F79-962D-7DF61FB16492@apple.com>
References: <4C5B1695.6070704@gmx.de> <F8E2F702-9F74-4316-B3B2-D5A731409ABF@apple.com> <4C5B2029.90403@gmx.de> <AANLkTim1WeCRfcPxXUNQcVhb4+t_TtDQDv2bXaxOQ=bk@mail.gmail.com> <01098AD0-FBF4-4A61-B565-947C95722BAA@apple.com> <AANLkTi=qQSND5BvUP5+P=wJ7E8SG6NncGZH8U8+VYwZ0@mail.gmail.com> <20100806004907.GF27827@shareable.org> <C0FC87B7-C51C-4B36-BC16-DBDB0B00A20F@gbiv.com> <20100806012845.GI27827@shareable.org> <AANLkTimuvuj87qwQi_1Gjg47-gGrCsDCQ5TDd5zvOw1N@mail.gmail.com> <20100806062928.GF20057@1wt.eu> <AANLkTimUkx8_Ssiuh4vJsgiQb2xmUzr5uAb-TgG=bjyh@mail.gmail.com> <F6D37A7E-C176-4F79-962D-7DF61FB16492@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 15:14:11 -0600
X-Google-Sender-Auth: Hky-i4PwYqDL2xOMHd7FN-kMZI4
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+GJSDVdfDXmov5aPeTKeaB7=Aa_uZxcMsPW9o@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jack Moffitt <jack@collecta.com>
To: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Impact of mandatory chunking (was Re: Background info: Properties of sendfile())
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, 06 Aug 2010 21:34:32 -0000

> It's not only the sender and intermediaries that are affected by mandatory chunking. The receiver is affected too. In the case of the browser as receiver, it is highly valuable to have the length up front, so the browser can either pre-allocate a memory buffer of the appropriate size, or decide to start spooling to disk right away if it knows the message will be too large to fit in memory. I imagine this will be useful in at least some cases of the server as receiver too.

Having a length is orthogonal to chunking. There's little reason not
to include it with the first chunk when it is known. Several of the
proposals have added that now.

If the field is dynamic and we have the machinery for chunking, then
everything is possible. It becomes only a question of whether both
methods will be reliably implemented. It seems feasible to believe
that they will, and so I hope everyone will be satisfied by this
compromise.

jack.