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

Re: Making extensibility cheap

From: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:26:33 +1000
Message-ID: <CACweHNBFC7BGWw+vZyrXjhqyMup2JicM6obPniWJf9cGaF7GvQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I'm also becoming pretty warm to the idea; as I said in the other thread,
I'd like to emphasise noisy errors over silent failure wherever possible.

On 4 June 2014 13:31, Daniel Sommermann <dcsommer@fb.com> wrote:

> I am curious to first see some use cases for end-to-end extensions though.
> I agree with the original proposal that ALTSVC and DATA gzip compression
> would be good candidates to move to extensions.
​If DATA compression was made an extension, there are two ways forward that
I can see:

1. Give hop-by-hop extensions the ability to modify existing frames (add
flags, maybe add fields, etc.) -- note that this pretty much leaves DATA
compression exactly where it is, but with different name for the setting.

2. Mint an extension frame that looks almost exactly like DATA, but
includes the compression stuff. If this was a hop-by-hop extension I think
there'd be very little disruption to the current spec; however it could
also become an end-to-end frame. That idea has much more far-reaching
consequences (e.g. does it cross a semantics boundary to move data outside
of DATA frames? What do non-extension caching proxies do? Etc.) and I've
put no more thought into it than what I've just written, but it's a

​I'm keen to see Martin's proposed words.​

  Matthew Kerwin
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2014 04:27:01 UTC

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