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

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

From: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 23:52:06 +0200
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, "Julian Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <op.xhrwc4u2iw9drz@beryllium.oslo.osa>
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 22:23:05 +0200, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>  

> If the origin server say "no-transform", and the UA receives a  
> transformed payload, that's non-conforming. I don't believe there's any  
> wiggle room here.

That depends on where you draw the line for the UA box. If you split the  
browser into multiple processes, are they allowed to send different  
representation of the data between each other? What if you move some  
processes to different hosts?

It also depends on what your view is on the authority over data. Should  
the origin server overrule the user agents decision? If the user agent  
explicitly asked for compressed data, should the origin server be allowed  
to overrule that? Should no-transform defeat all network security  

> The spec is agnostic about what kind of payloads it's used on. It might  
> be true that *in practice* it's mostly used for these, but that doesn't  
> change the protocol requirement to leave the payload alone when it's set.

In the case of current Turbo it's not HTTP so the protocol requirement  
doesn't apply.

/Martin Nilsson

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Received on Friday, 20 June 2014 21:52:23 UTC

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