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

RE: HTTP Header Compaction Results

From: RUELLAN Herve <Herve.Ruellan@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 08:13:38 +0000
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
CC: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <6C71876BDCCD01488E70A2399529D5E522F9BE@ADELE.crf.canon.fr>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com]
> Sent: mercredi 24 octobre 2012 21:44
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: Patrick McManus; Roberto Peon; Amos Jeffries; ietf-http-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: HTTP Header Compaction Results
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	On 25/10/2012, at 5:00 AM, Patrick McManus
> <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> 	>
> 	> for reference https://developer.mozilla.org/en-

> US/docs/NSS_Key_Log_Format
> 
> 	Thanks; I looked for that before, but couldn't find it. Should have
> asked.
> 
> 	I agree that the logs should be 'raw'; we can always post-process (as
> long as we do it in a uniform manner :)
> 
> 	How would people prefer to store them? I've been storing them as
> just text files, one per direction per stream (e.g., "response headers on this
> connection to 1.2.3.4"), with header blocks delimited by a blank line.
> However, IIRC someone mentioned HAR as well -- any preferences?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> text files would work just fine.

I agree that text files are OK.

HAR could also work, but are somewhat more complex to process. Moreover I think it's easier to write a HAR to text files translator than the reverse.

Hervé.

> - James
> 
> 
> 	Cheers,
> 
> 
> 	--
> 	Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 08:14:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 October 2012 08:14:30 GMT