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

Re: HTTP Header Compaction Results

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:05:55 +1100
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <163BECE9-5B27-46D3-A43C-B448421E84A1@mnot.net>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
The only thing that gives me pause about using plain text is that if we want to combine streams to the same server to simulate multiplexing, we may want to apply a time-based heuristic to do so, meaning we'll need some metadata.

Date is in responses, but not requests; I *guess* we could infer it from the paired responses, but then there's clock skew, etc.

Just a thought; I'm happy with text if that doesn't worry anyone else.

Cheers,


On 25/10/2012, at 8:52 PM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 25/10/2012 9:13 p.m., RUELLAN Herve wrote:
>>> -----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.
> 
> Since the traffic is arriving in HTTP text format to produce a HAR file one needs to write such a translator and apply it on the data stream. Producing a .txt can be just a packet buffer dump.
> 
> Amos
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 10:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 25 October 2012 10:06:20 GMT