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

Re: Transfer-codings, mandatory content-coding support and intermediaries

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2014 07:21:17 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNAGzo8o82YMm0RS5=qPoCLg-ZJnZD6=2d1Yyqz0QszPdA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, C.Brunhuber@iaea.org, K.Morgan@iaea.org, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
On Apr 19, 2014 2:41 AM, "Martin Thomson" <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matthew's proposal is closer to acceptable, though I think that it
> could (and should) be significantly reduced in complexity.  I think
> that we could reasonably mandate the use of gzip on a segment by
> segment basis, which should help with the security concerns (and
> provide a better excuse for including END_SEGMENT).  Strategic
> segmentation could be used to separate content.  No alternative
> compression schemes or negotiation - those lead to interoperability
> failures.
>

The obvious simplification, then, would be to change the setting to "accept
gzip (yes/no)" (or replace the setting with a MUST support), and remove the
encoding field from the Data frame.

This tends back towards the single gzip bit, which is alright, as long as
it is clear that the compression context applies only to that data frame.
Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 21:21:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:30 UTC