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

Re: Support for gzip at the server #424

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 16:49:32 -0400
Cc: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <B0B01C58-63C2-46F6-8D46-1A8778FA52CB@apple.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Roberto,

That doesn't work in a lot of situations.  Particularly with IPP, we are often dealing with gigabytes of print data and buffering that on the client prior to sending it is generally not feasible and causes a poor user experience (mainly delayed printing...)


On Mar 14, 2014, at 1:42 PM, Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> wrote:

> Implementation experience here says that many servers barf if they don't get content-length for an upload.
> 
> imho, the simple solution is to mandate the presence of a header that indicates the uncompressed content-length when sending compressed data on http/2. This is generically useful in many applications in both directions.
> -=R
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> wrote:
> receiving chunked requests is not supported with a high enough certainty that anyone yet wants to send them in a generic web context. (apps that know their server's capabilities apriori are a different story). HTTP/2 negotiation at first seems to make that easier, but supporting easy gatewaying back to http/1.0 makes it hard again :(
> 
> as much as I would really like this feature, I think its reasonable not to include it.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> * Martin Thomson wrote:
> >On 14 March 2014 02:20, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de> wrote:
> >> ISIZE is in the footer and not the header.
> >
> >So that leads me back to the original conclusion.  Since
> >intermediation from 2 to 1.1 will require the Content-Length and
> >extracting that from a gzip'd body would require buffering an entire
> >request, I'm inclined to say that this is too hard.
> 
> It would help if you explain why you think Content-Length is needed in
> this scenario. `Transfer-Encoding: chunked` is supported by servers and
> intermediaries. Likely not perfectly, but if that is the concern we
> should make that very explicit.
> --
> 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/
> 
> 
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair


Received on Friday, 14 March 2014 20:50:02 UTC

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