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

Re: h2#404 requiring gzip and/or deflate

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:28:53 +1300
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <b605eab47ad47cd05f3b47a3f4e41008@treenet.co.nz>
On 2014-02-26 10:21, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 25 February 2014 13:08, Amos Jeffries wrote:
>>  * Make 2.0 change the name to add "zlib" explicitly alongside 
>> gzip+deflate
>>  * Add a note that deflate has confusion *in 1.1* and instructing 
>> 1.1<->2.0
>> gateways to enforce correct deflate/zlib labeling or re-encoding.
> I think perhaps if we do want to *mandate* gzip+deflate that this
> would be the best way to do it.  It would be trivially possible to
> translate "zlib" into "deflate" at a 2.0->1.1 intermediary.
> The question is whether the advantages of deflate over gzip warrant
> it.  I have no expertise, but it doesn't sound like they are
> substantial enough to warrant the extra complexity.

I am thinking we need to have a note about fixing the deflate 
interoperability at the gateway regardless of whether deflate (or zlib) 
is listed as a default. Lets not permit the issue to continue with 
HTTP/2 senders.

Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2014 02:29:21 UTC

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