W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2012

Re: Using HTTP Trailers [was: Content-Integrity header]

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:15:14 +1200
To: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <5873d845ec83172df5f8254eec85bff5@treenet.co.nz>
On 12.07.2012 09:59, Zhong Yu wrote:
> Transfer-Encoding and Content-Encoding overlap in functionality. For
> example, gzip can be done in either way. But in reality, gzip is only
> implemented with Content-Encoding, for whatever reason. It might be
> safer to introduce a new content-coding than a new transfer-coding.
>

The Content-Encoding is about the entity. End-to-End.
The Transfer-Encoding is about the channel. Hop-by-Hop.

gzip is not implemented as Transfer-Encoding due to all the reasons 
Willy and I put forward against mandatory gzip compression on SPDY 
connections. It is a large performance loss to de/re-compress at every 
hop. chunked on the other hand is trivial to recode and when used right 
increases performance.

When implementing anything which intermediaries *need* visibility to 
and possibly even manipulation of, Content-Encoding is the worst way to 
do it.

AYJ
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2012 00:15:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 12 July 2012 00:16:01 GMT