- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:52:12 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
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
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 09:52:47 UTC