Subject: Re: [core] #118: Block URI Transmission

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 01:32:31 -0000

#118: Block URI Transmission

Comment(by likepeng@…):

 Can we just use Token to correlate the blocks? That is, only the first
 block request has URI, all the following block requests use Token to
 correlate with the first block request, then we don't need to send URI in
 the following block requests. For the response, currently, it can be
 achieved already by using Message ID, without returning URI again.

 Kepeng Li

-- 
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  likepeng@…            |       Owner:     
     Type:  protocol enhancement  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  major                 |   Milestone:     
Component:  block                 |     Version:     
 Severity:  -                     |    Keywords:     
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/118#comment:1>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 16:49:13 -0000

Comment(by cabo@…):

 I don't agree with the premise that URIs are big.
 Block is used when packets are mostly full, so the overall effect of
 not sending URIs will be in the single-digit or tens of percent.
 (We currently don't send URIs in responses, BTW.)
 The potential optimizations I have seen all break the ability of the
 server to handle block-wise requests in a stateless fashion.
 I propose not to spend time on this at this point -- too little gain
 for too much added complexity.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/118#comment:2>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>

---

From: Likepeng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:54:20 +0000

Currently we already sent Token in all the block requests, can we just use Token to correlate all the block requests, without sending the URI in the request?

It does not add any new fields or parameters in the request. Both the client and server have to record Token anyway. I don't think too much complexity is added.

Kepeng
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: core issue tracker [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2011年3月13日 0:49
收件人: [email-masked]; Likepeng
抄送: [email-masked]
主题: Re: [core] #118: Block URI Transmission

Comment(by cabo@…):

---

From: "core issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:03:16 -0000

Changes (by cabo@…):

  * priority:  major => minor
  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => wontfix
  * severity:  - => Active WG Document

Comment:

 Closing with wontfix for now as we don't have a good proposal how to
 perform this minor optimization (and it is doubtful whether a good way
 even exists).  (Note that some of the discussion was diverted to ticket
 #128 due to a tracker email interface bug now fixed.  This is already
 resolved wontfix.)

-- 
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  likepeng@…            |        Owner:         
     Type:  protocol enhancement  |       Status:  closed 
 Priority:  minor                 |    Milestone:         
Component:  block                 |      Version:         
 Severity:  Active WG Document    |   Resolution:  wontfix
 Keywords:                        |  
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/core/trac/ticket/118#comment:3>
core <http://tools.ietf.org/core/>