- From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 18:18:53 -0600
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Zhong Yu <zhong.j.yu@gmail.com>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > -------- > In message <CAK3OfOi+cXMLGsMCpD1cRBxzz46wVYYj8nz021fhqhM7fTDMWA@mail.gmail.com> > , Nico Williams writes: > >>> But how does the 2 ends agree on which encoding to use? It might be >>> easier if HTTP just dictate UTF-8. >> >>Not might be. Will be. > > Really ? > > I have a hard time squaring that with the "HTTP/2 is just a transport > protocol, we don't change the semantics" credo that was waved around > rather forcefully previously ? I'm talking about *header* data, not payloads. HTTP/2.0 is just a transport as far as the data goes, but there is metadata too. > [1] We can probably do much more for transmission efficiency by killing > cookies and adding client provided session-identifieres, than any > kind of encoding or compression will ever be able to...[2] Sort of. Servers will still want to store state on the client side (generally encrypted, thus not further compressible). See http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-williams-websec-session-continue-prob-00 . > [2] Not to mention the improved privacy and legal compliance that > would automatically buy everybody... Yes, see draft-williams-websec-session-continue-prob-00 (and -proto-00). Nico --
Received on Monday, 11 February 2013 00:19:16 UTC