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

Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 20:20:27 +0100
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <548fg9h4a9ci4ios7uhajvf4btlu71fb1q@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
* Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>I disagree.
>
>The overhead is minute, for instance the filename is optional and seldomly
>used in HTTP context.
>
>The CRC32 it brings is a very good integrity check which suprisingly
>often uncovers trouble.
>
>Gzip further has the advantage that there are plenty of command line
>tools available for it, whereas deflate is quite hard to produce with
>regular tools.

I think `gzip` is a good match for HTTP/1.1 where compression got added
later and the headers are so large that you do not feel the 18 bytes of
minimum overhead, but for a mandatory-to-implement compression scheme I
do not think tools make for a good argument, and I note that libraries
in my experience more commonly support the RFC 1950 zlib format or raw
RFC 1951 streams than RFC 1952 gzip streams; if checksums and an estab-
lished format are important, RFC 1950 has only 6 bytes minimum overhead
(2 bytes flags, 4 bytes Adler32 checksum).
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 
Received on Friday, 21 February 2014 19:20:46 UTC

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