- From: <K.Morgan@iaea.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2014 12:10:07 +0000
- To: <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, <mnot@mnot.net>, <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: <daniel@haxx.se>, <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, <C.Brunhuber@iaea.org>, <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, <roland@zinks.de>
On 20 April 2014 01:06, Matthew Kerwin wrote (emphasis added): > On Apr 20, 2014 8:17 AM, "Patrick McManus" <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote: >> i'm in favor of the status quo here (i.e. no TE and implicit CE: gzip). ... > > Normally I'm happy for status quo, but the current text contains an oversight. The only real alternative is to > remove the "MUST support" for gzip C-E -- that's the part that breaks the protocol. If anyone is still > desperate for compression then only place we're able to add it is in the transport/framing layer. Patrick, in an earlier thread regarding removal of implicit C-E gzip, you wrote [1] ... "CE gzip was made a fixed part of the protocol, in part, because intercepting intermediaries (or antivirus libraries as a subset of that) were explicitly stripping negotiation for it for their own convenience. Making it non negotiable enhances the robustness of the protocol against that which is imo the right trade given the history here and the importance of compression." In light of the mounting support against implicit C-E gzip, how would you propose to deal with the problem you mentioned above? and the importance of compression? As Matthew pointed out, if a server wants the ability to always use compression, no matter what, then the only place that will likely be possible is at the transport/framing layer. Other ideas? Or is compression not that important that you would be willing to use it? I bring it up because making transport/framing gzip optional, means that servers won't always have the option to compress. On 21 April 2014 01:57, mnot@mnot.net wrote: > … which is one of the reasons I think we need to seriously consider dropping this text. +1 On 20 April 2014 18:21 roland@zinks.de wrote: > ... +1 to everything Roland said. On 20 April 2014 01:06, Matthew Kerwin wrote: > ... +1 to everything Matthew said. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2014JanMar/1283.html This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 12:11:09 UTC