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

RE: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?

From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 17:34:48 +0000
To: Matthew Kerwin <matthew@kerwin.net.au>, "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
CC: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f85c882d3dc14ae784cf6f348ae94888@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I'll note that while changing the semantics of your setting to supplement, rather than replace, previously-sent values of the setting is perfectly legal (it's an extension, so you can change semantics if you need to), I really don't like having one setting that behaves completely differently than all of the others, and it doesn't seem critical to your goals.  That's why I made the setting a bitmask when I pulled your proposal into my draft's appendix.  However, a bitmask loses the ability to specify weights, which is needed for a strict replacement of HTTP/1.1 T-E.

Another option might be an (informative) frame type which gives weightings, but given the relative scarcity of frame types versus settings in the accepted version, I understand the desire to keep this in the setting space.

-----Original Message-----
From: phluid61@gmail.com [mailto:phluid61@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Kerwin
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2014 6:16 PM
To: Eric J. Bowman
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp; HTTP Working Group
Subject: Re: HTTP/2 vs. proxies ?

Eric wrote:
> the only thing HTTP/2 is ready for is T-E,
which will only happen if, not when, the corporate interests jump on the interoperability bandwagon. So I'm sure HTTP/2 will go to last call without it, this is simply not the consensus view (although I question whether this would be the case if HTTP/2 were being developed by those who care about architecture over the corporate bottom line for the next quarter).

Speaking of T-E, and non-corporate interests, I've cobbled together something based on one of my original proposals for encoded/compressed DATA frames, taking advantage of the new extensibility model:

If there's interest I'm happy to hand it over to the wg, or to shuffle the ids up into the experimental ranges and keep it unofficial.

  Matthew Kerwin

Received on Monday, 23 June 2014 17:35:38 UTC

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