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

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

From: David Morris <dwm@xpasc.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 14:33:19 -0700 (PDT)
To: "'HTTP Working Group'" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1404181430350.1995@egate.xpasc.com>


On Sat, 19 Apr 2014, Matthew Kerwin wrote:

>
> 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.

I've missed some of the discussion, but I can't imagine why you would
limit the compression context to a single data frame.
Received on Friday, 18 April 2014 21:33:51 UTC

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