Re: Getting to Consensus: CONTINUATION-related issues

Option a- I find this option to be an extremely poor option. I hate it, it
should not happen.

It increases aggregate complexity while increasing the DoS surface as it
would require state rewind in the compressor. This would impact scalability
in a very negative way, in terms of memory, and in terms of cpu (copying
the whole compression context would be expensive, and would need to be done
for every response unless one can accurately predict the compressed size).
Compressor rewind would often result in a doubling of the memory
requirements for the compressor while compressing, as the least error-prone
rewind is to make a copy of the complete compressor state. While more
efficient 'rewinds' are possible, the complexity becomes significantly
higher, and when done improperly, could result in state committments of
more than double the compression size (it could be as large as message-size
+ state size)

Option b-

 I could live with it. It acts against the right thing-- uncompressed size,
which implies no state rewind from the compressor, and, so long as the
setting can be set large, it can retain compatibility with HTTP/1.

-=R
On Jul 17, 2014 5:47 PM, "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> We've had a rollicking discussion about the design tradeoffs in
> CONTINUATION, especially regarding HOL blocking and DoS considerations.
>
> I see very little new information entering that discussion, and I think
> everyone has come to understand the tradeoffs. For a refresher, please see
> the wiki:
>   https://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>