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

Re: FYI... Binary Optimized Header Encoding for SPDY

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 21:33:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbdiAHWYO5EGzTiZgHk4EA4WQa2XTiBCC7cDfBpjbozgbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Timothy Knox <tdk@thelbane.com>
On Aug 2, 2012 9:28 PM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> On 2012/08/03 4:29, Timothy Knox wrote:
>>
>> Somewhere on Shadow Earth, at Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:48:52AM -0700,
James M Snell wrote:
>> <snip>
>>>
>>> This is precisely why I favor the introduction of a binary value option
and
>>> the definition of highly-optimized binary encodings for the most
commonly
>>> used protocol headers (like method, version, etc). Things like Host and
>>> Request URI need to be looked at tho. I suspect that, for a variety of
>>> reason, we'll want to keep limiting those values to ASCII only.  (just
>>> because the value COULD be UTF-8, doesn't mean a specific header
definition
>>> cannot limit the actual value to some reasonable subset).
>>
>>
>> For the Host header, I have just three letters to say to you: I-D-N. :-)
>
>
> You mean Internationalized Domain Names, and specifically U-Labels (the
thing that can actually be read the way it's intended to read, rather than
some useless salad of letters after xn--)? I fully agree. The reason these
are in punycode in HTTP/1.1 is that HTTP/1.1 is way older than IDNs, but
for HTTP/2.0, that's not the case.
>

+1... while I recognize there are a list of concerns with their use, it
would be excellent to avoid having to punycode those or apply other
different encoding mechanisms to other headers as well.

> Regards,   Martin.
>
Received on Friday, 3 August 2012 04:34:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 August 2012 04:34:32 GMT