Ian Goldberg wrote:
> Anyway, here's the client-side sibling proposal to the
> already-implemented 174. It cuts down time-to-first-byte for HTTP
> requests by 25 to 50 percent, so long as your SOCKS client (e.g.
> webfetch, polipo, etc.) is patched to support it. (With that kind of
> speedup, I
On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 05:51:41PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> >> I'm a little worried about the robustness issue: currently, if an exit
> >> node refuses a BEGIN request (because of its exit policy typically)
> >> the Tor client will retry at another exit node. But if optimistic
> >> data is i
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Ian Goldberg wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:15:53PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Ian Goldberg wrote:
>> > Sorry this took so long. As usual, things got inserted ahead of it in
>> > the priority queue. :-p
>> >
>> > Anyway,
Ian Goldberg wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 08:42:33PM +0200, Fabian Keil wrote:
> > Ian Goldberg wrote:
> > > Overview:
> > >
> > > This proposal (as well as its already-implemented sibling concerning the
> > > server side) aims to reduce the latency of HTTP requests in particular
> > > by
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 11:15:53PM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Ian Goldberg wrote:
> > Sorry this took so long. As usual, things got inserted ahead of it in
> > the priority queue. :-p
> >
> > Anyway, here's the client-side sibling proposal to the
> > already-i
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 8:45 PM, Ian Goldberg wrote:
> Sorry this took so long. As usual, things got inserted ahead of it in
> the priority queue. :-p
>
> Anyway, here's the client-side sibling proposal to the
> already-implemented 174. It cuts down time-to-first-byte for HTTP
> requests by 25 t
> Assuming you mean "stream" instead of "circuit" here, then, as above, I
> think most HTTP connections would be in this category. It might be
> interesting to examine some HTTP traces to see, though. target="Kevin">Kevin, you were looking at some HTTP traces for other
> reasons, right? Anythin
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 08:42:33PM +0200, Fabian Keil wrote:
> Ian Goldberg wrote:
>
> > Anyway, here's the client-side sibling proposal to the
> > already-implemented 174. It cuts down time-to-first-byte for HTTP
> > requests by 25 to 50 percent, so long as your SOCKS client (e.g.
> > webfetch,
Ian Goldberg wrote:
> Anyway, here's the client-side sibling proposal to the
> already-implemented 174. It cuts down time-to-first-byte for HTTP
> requests by 25 to 50 percent, so long as your SOCKS client (e.g.
> webfetch, polipo, etc.) is patched to support it. (With that kind of
> speedup, I
Sorry this took so long. As usual, things got inserted ahead of it in
the priority queue. :-p
Anyway, here's the client-side sibling proposal to the
already-implemented 174. It cuts down time-to-first-byte for HTTP
requests by 25 to 50 percent, so long as your SOCKS client (e.g.
webfetch, polip
10 matches
Mail list logo
