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

Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

From: Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 08:08:24 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNpz+L=Nu_4Sp++vgiArxBPLBr9OkiKpzGz97ZYX=VT8pw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
I think what the http/2 text means to say is that an "Accept-Encoding:
gzip, deflate" request header is implicit in every request and the client
needs to be able to process responses with those encodings.


On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 11:13 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:

> The other aspect of this is that HTTP already says:
>
> >    A request without an Accept-Encoding header field implies that the
> >    user agent has no preferences regarding content-codings.  Although
> >    this allows the server to use any content-coding in a response, it
> >    does not imply that the user agent will be able to correctly process
> >    all encodings.
> >
> >    A server tests whether a content-coding for a given representation is
> >    acceptable using these rules:
> >
> >    1.  If no Accept-Encoding field is in the request, any content-coding
> >        is considered acceptable by the user agent.
>
> ...
>
> <
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-26#section-5.3.4
> >
>
> So, what the current text *really* says is that servers can ignore the
> 'identity' content-encoding when it appears alone in the request.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> On 21 Feb 2014, at 6:14 am, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Mark raises a point on which the spec is a little vague:
> >
> > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/404
> > --
> > 9.3 GZip Content-Encoding says:
> >
> > Clients MUST support gzip compression for HTTP request bodies.
> > Regardless of the value of the accept-encoding header field, a server
> > MAY send responses with gzip or deflate encoding.
> >
> > ... Is it both gzip and deflate (which last I checked, some clients
> > don't support)? If so, the first sentence and section title should be
> > changed to reflect this.
> > --
> >
> > I think that this is largely inherited from SPDY, but I get the sense
> > that there is support for the concept in general.
> >
> > I want to clarify the text above... Do we want to mandate (i.e., use
> > MUST) 1. gzip or 2. gzip+deflate ?
> >
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 13:08:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:24 UTC