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

If this was always in then I problably misunderstood issue #424 
(https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/424) and the consensus call 
to it http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JanMar/1118.html.

The problem itself still persists and I mentioned this repeatedly, but 
see also Keith's mail 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0175.html), 
Julian's message 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014AprJun/0179.html) 
and issue 445 https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/445.

The requirement to support gzip compression doesn't hold for HTTP/1.1 
clients and a HTTP/1.1 to HTTP2 gateway would either need to decompress 
violating the end to end property of content encoding or some HTTP/1.1 
clients are incompatible. Using T-E instead of C-E would be a possible 
solution to the problem.

Regards,
Roland


On 11.04.2014 20:22, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 11 April 2014 10:53, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> wrote:
>> Hi Martin,
>>
>> So the following text was modified?
>>
>> Roland
>>
>> 9.3 GZip Content-Encoding
>>
>> Clients MUST support gzip compression for HTTP response bodies. Regardless
>> of the value of the accept-encoding header field, a server MAY send
>> responses with gzip encoding.
> draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00 included the following text:
>
>        User-agents MUST support gzip compression.  Regardless of the
>        Accept-Encoding sent by the user-agent, the server may always send
>        content encoded with gzip or deflate encoding.
>
> That has been replaced with the section you cite part of.

Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 19:00:06 UTC