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

Re: Negotiating compression

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:08:49 -0400
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Simone Bordet <simone.bordet@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <3778F916-72AF-47A8-952B-724B60B82AFC@apple.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>

On May 29, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> 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
> That's really not the intent, if not the reading, of that section.  A
> variation occurs within a protocol, and the key focus of that text is
> one of assuring interoperability with means to identify among the
> communicating systems that different rules in play.  Here there are
> clear mechanisms to do that.  They are talking about a separate clearly
> identified protocol.  Whether or not a separate protocol is warranted is
> a different discussion.  Michael says yes.

I didn't say anything about a separate protocol.  I have filed an issue and mentioned on several occasions that I would like a setting (that can be passed in the initial HTTP/2 setup) to disable Huffman, just as we have a setting for the header table size.

I don't think that would be overwhelming to test or implement, and since we are already asking implementations to track header representations that must be preserved (literal headers without indexing) I don't think it would be stretch to have a way to say "do not Huffman compress at all".

Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

Received on Friday, 30 May 2014 14:09:24 UTC

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