Re: Idea for making SSL more efficient

["Frank O'Dwyer" <fod () littlecatZ com>]

V. Poddubnyy wrote:

> Do you mean: <img src="https://myserver/mypic.jpg";
> supersrc="http://myserver/mypic.jpg"; hash="agqwe54"> ? I think this will
> help to revert back the traffic size, because any image will contain
> additional link...
>  
Yes that's true. <img src="https://myserver/mypic.jph"; hash="ab1234..."> 
would be enough though (i.e. have modified clients just change the 
scheme to http implicitly), or have the server serve a different page 
based on the user agent header. The hash is going to tend to expand the 
message too though - depends whether the increase in cache hits will be 
worth it.

> So poor dial-up users will need to download 100 Kb image up to 2 or 3 times
> (from proxy, from original server, then may be via SSL) to be sure it is
> correct image? 
Well never 3 - twice at most, and only if the cache is broken. You'll 
average 1.something downloads per image if the cache works at all (just 
1 if it works perfectly) - whether that's going to be worth it depends 
on how well the cache works, and whether it's cheaper to access the 
cache than the end server, which depends on all sorts of factors.

> And if the page contains many images that chage often? You
> will need to use standard SSL for  those images to prevent many
> redownloads...
>  
Yes, but so what. That's how it is now.

Cheers,
Frank