W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2014

Re: #445: Transfer-codings

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 06:00:50 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAhaUDyUd7YgVukrxijYsWuz4Bg2f_1orJuRkC8wGXyZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Apr 5, 2014 5:33 AM, "Michael Sweet" <msweet@apple.com> wrote:
>
> -1 on this.
>
> First, why a separate flag when you can just look at a couple bytes in
the DATA?

Which bytes? Are you suggesting magic number heuristics? Or extra metadata
packed into DATA frames?

> Second, what about all of the security considerations that have been
brought up?

If they're the same as the ones Martin mentioned earlier, see my reply
there.

> And finally, HTTP/2 is not supposed to introduce new semantics.  If you
have TE: gzip/compress/zlib, then that needs to be proposed separately
since it applies equally to HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2.

No, the only time TE applies equally to HTTP/1.1 and HTTP/2 is if a 1.1<->2
gateway blindly forwards transfer-encoded data; but they're not even meant
to do that in the 1.1<->1.1 case. TE is a hop-by-hop header.

HTTP/2 is explicitly supposed to alter transport, and TE is a transport
issue. That's why it's ok (but deficient) that the current draft alters
what's allowed in TE headers.
Received on Friday, 4 April 2014 20:01:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:29 UTC