W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: WGLC comment on draft-ietf-httpbis-encryption-encoding-03, was: Encryption content coding simplification

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 20:09:10 +0200
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <bc9e0fcb-03d8-5592-4388-4641d308dba3@gmx.de>
On 2016-10-13 19:46, Mike Bishop wrote:
> Well, I can point at one, though it's not exactly a model of perfect HTTP C-E integration design....  Looking at https://winprotocoldoc.blob.core.windows.net/productionwindowsarchives/MS-PCCRTP/[MS-PCCRTP].pdf, there are additional headers that carry the client's parameters (which the server will need if it chooses that coding) and then carry the server's selections back.
>
> Most notable (and probably the worst choice :-) ) is that rather than defining a new C-E value for v2, the parameters include the client's min/max supported versions, and the server tells the client which version it used in a response header.

...and SDCH will also need a way to send compression related parameters, 
right?

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 13 October 2016 18:09:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 13 October 2016 18:09:50 UTC