W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:36:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CABP7Rbdft=ukmL+vgyJtSTRSVytxMFkX6ctqhqhJ2Njw_OLr1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
Cc: ChanWilliam(陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Pablo <paa.listas@gmail.com>
This is still being worked out really, qualitative numbers will be coming.
So far, however, we're talking about around a 50% reduction in header
overhead on the wire without compression. Obviously, however, we're no
where near being done yet.
On Jan 20, 2013 3:26 PM, "Tim Bray" <tbray@textuality.com> wrote:

> Would it be possible to be data-driven?  Textual formats are
> well-known to be easier to debug; but clearly, if there’s a
> substantial performance benefit to going all-binary, so be it. So what
> is the advantage, quantitatively? -T
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
> > 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 23:37:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 20 January 2013 23:37:27 GMT