- From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:04:08 +1100
- To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
- Cc: Pablo <paa.listas@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In one of our recent meetings, one of the grey-bearded IETF old-timers (I forget which, sorry) said that a textual-protocol was a nice-to-have, but that it shouldn't be a determining factor in design. I.e., if you can get everything you need out of a protocol, *and* make it textual, do so, but if it detracts from the value you get from it, don't let that constrain you. FWIW, I think that's a good rule of thumb. However, this means that the community is going to need *excellent* tooling for analysing, debugging, etc. HTTP traffic; and I don't just mean a Wireshark plugin! Cheers, On 21/01/2013, at 9:36 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote: > There are many advantages to using binary data. If you would like a > textual representation of a protocol, I advise using a utility to > generate one for you. > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Pablo <paa.listas@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I have readed this document >> http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-protocol/spdy-protocol-draft1 today [1]. >> >> I just wanted to say that I think that the use of any binary data (framing, >> header compression, etc.) in any place of the "header" part of HTTP protocol >> is not good; so, please only use plaintext for HTTP 2.0 because, otherwise, >> that will make very difficult to "see" the headers's protocol :) >> >> Thats all, >> Thanks for reading this few lines, sorry for my basic English, and I hope >> that you can re-think all this of using binary data in any part of HTTP X.X >> (ej: session layer). >> >> >> [1] I started knowing about HTTP 2.0 here: >> http://webscannotes.com/2012/10/09/http-2-0-officially-in-the-works/ >> > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2013 23:04:34 UTC