Re: [hybi] deflate-stream vs. frame-by-frame

["Arman Djusupov" <[e-mail]>]

> First, there is the question of compression and masking. Compressing 
> masked text is of dubious utility, efficacy, and efficiency. Masking 
> tends to randomize text, random text is a poor candidate for 
> compression (in some cases, attempting to compress random text can 
> actually cause the "compressed" text to be larger than the original 
> text). Taken solely on this basis, ANY compression should precede masking.

Agree, compression should be applied before masking or not applied at all. 
 
> Lastly, compression on a sub-channel by sub-channel basis (generally 
> meaning per-frame basis) does not imply a need for 200KB of buffer 
> space per sub-channel. Rather, the amount of buffer space required per
> sub- channel depends upon the frame-size and the compression scheme used.
> Some compression schemes can function with minimal context, others may 
> need more. In any event, compression works best with a high degree of 
> correlation between successive data elements, thus there is a logical 
> division between the frames being transmitted within different 
> sub-channels to
> (presumably) different applications.

Yes, there are solutions on how to efficiently compress mux channels but these do not need to be defined in the current spec. IMO a mux extension should offer its own, independent compression extension which could be more efficient with mux frames.

The "deflate-stream" should either be removed or adapted to be applied prior to masking to be good for general purpose transport compression. But in any case, since "deflate-stream" is optional it is not required to be ideal for mux frames compression.

With best regards,
Arman