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

Re: Negotiating compression

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 09:24:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWsTBMx8kyDr8ynGcQ-FRSM9n591BYOupPfwJLtNO1+Ug@mail.gmail.com>
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 29 May 2014 00:36, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au> wrote:
> Perhaps it would be better to use h2f for failsafe mode, to make it clear
> that h2 is the benchmark, and h2f is an acceptable variant/subset. It's more
> of an all-or-nothing approach that way. It also fits the "add a letter,
> remove a feature" pattern established with h2c and security.

Please no.  That's not a pattern worth repeating.  I know that we've
discussed a limited profile in the past, but that was used to prime
initial state.

I haven't seen any justification for creating a protocol variation.
See Section 3.4 of RFC 6709:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6709#section-3.4

Note: h2c is a protocol variation in some ways, but it's merely
propagating an existing variation.
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2014 16:25:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:31 UTC