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

Re: Porting T-E to HTTP/2: Reasons Against

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 09:41:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUoVG6Lmfg1dJUPdYQbGVzpFjSwDWXuJRMmHB37NPQKSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 11 April 2014 09:17, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> wrote:
>> 2. It's a very late stage to be adding features.
>
> Mandating C-E gzip was added lately and actually this causes some problems
> which may be solved be T-E.

C-E gzip (and maybe deflate) have been in the spec since the
beginning.  The recent change was to remove the mandate for C-E
deflate (which might not have been a mandate due to confusing text).

> Actually why is C-E better here than T-E? Especially as existing proxies do
> C-E on the fly.

That's not a good idea.  For the aforementioned reason, and for other
reasons including having to re-mint ETags without coordination with
the origin server.
Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 16:41:34 UTC

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