- From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
- Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 19:16:58 +1300
- To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 5/04/2014 10:29 a.m., Matthew Kerwin wrote: > On Apr 5, 2014 6:47 AM, "Michael Sweet" <msweet@apple.com> wrote: >> >> Matthew Kerwin: >>> >>> Michael Sweet: >>>> >>>> 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? >> >> If I understood your proposal correctly, your TE field is always in bytes > 4-5 of the DATA frame. > > "This field is optional and is only present if the ENCODED flag is set." > > Otherwise everyone would pay a 2-byte tax for something only a few use. Unless that tax were perhapse the incentive for implementations to encode data more securely than plain identity encoding? while still allowing identity encoding (value 0x0000) to be used. > >>>> 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. >> >> Given some of the security concerns that have been voiced on this list, I > think it would be reasonable for a gateway to forward gzip'd data provided > that the other end supports it, but not to introduce gzip since the gateway > probably lacks the context needed to know it is safe to compress. > > Indeed. I guess that since -- as Ilari and mnot pointed out -- this differs > from TE in the compression contexts, it makes it hard for a 2->1.1 gateway, > and even harder for a 1.1->2. That's an issue with this propsal, which is > hard to address nicely. Not much more so than with the current draft. Gateways are forced to uncompress and send as identity+chunked in HTTP/2 at present. Also, why would a 2->1.1 gateway go to the trouble of compressing ? The presence of a HTTP/2 hop anywhere in the path is likely to result in *less* usage of compressed data. More bandwidth waste overall. Amos
Received on Saturday, 5 April 2014 06:17:30 UTC