Re: intermediaries, implicit gzip, etags, no-transform

On 2014-06-20 22:34, Michael Piatek wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> I'm an engineer at Google working on the compression proxy service.
> Responses inline.
>
> In general, we're happy to get bug reports from the community, but
> it's difficult to track them in mailing lists. If you believe you've
> found a bug, please do file an issue at http://crbug.com/ and mention
> the data compression proxy in your report. We'll see it.
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 8:12 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
>
>> - both implicitly use content-coding gzip, but do not touch the Etag,
>> potentially breaking HTTP semantics
>
> If you have specific examples of real sites broken by this behavior,
> please let me know and we'll investigate.

We just (two weeks ago) killed implicit gzip in HTTP/2, so we're pretty 
sure it's a serious problem.

In the meantime, can you define what you consider a "real" site?

>> - setting "cache-control: no-transform" on the response, does not change
>> this behavior, thus both seem to violate a "MUST NOT" requirement from
>> <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7230.html#rfc.section.5.7.2>
>
> This will be fixed. Thanks for the report.

Thanks.

Best regards, Julian

Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 20:41:45 UTC