- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 23:26:55 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org>
- CC: Michael Piatek <piatek@google.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2014-06-20 23:19, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 20 June 2014 14:08, Johnny Graettinger <jgraettinger@chromium.org> wrote: >>> We just (two weeks ago) killed implicit gzip in HTTP/2, so we're pretty >>> sure it's a serious problem. >> >> >> My recollection (and that of the meeting minutes) was that we killed >> implicit gzip because there are gnarly HTTP/1 spec conformance issues, and a >> similar outcome can be achieved if first-mover HTTP/2 deployments refuse >> HTTP/2 requests with a-e: identity. I don't recall it being substantiated as >> a "serious problem" in that conversation. > > We killed it so that we could avoid having to talk about it any more. > That worked out well, didn't it? Absolutely. Not having implicit GZIP seems to be undesirable performance-wise. Having it is undesirable because of broken HTTP semantics. Time to finally fix T-E? Best regards, Julian
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 21:27:38 UTC