- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 13:42:59 -0700
- To: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
- Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, K.Morgan@iaea.org, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 24 March 2014 13:19, Roy T. Fielding <fielding@gbiv.com> wrote: > It seems you have confused them. Let's take the "seems" out of that, I did confuse them. And it is not the first time that has happened in this area. > If HTTP/2 doesn't allow compression transfer encodings, then it doesn't > allow compression by intermediaries. I assumed that TE was replaced by > a framing mechanism that indicates the payload has been compressed. > If that isn't so, then HTTP/2 will be less efficient than HTTP/1 for > some use cases (like CDNs). We had a long series of discussions on this point. It may be that we failed to trigger the necessary reactions from folks at the time and this needs to be reopened. I will not attempt to defend the process we took. 0. SPDY had a frame to indicate that frames were compressed http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mbelshe-httpbis-spdy-00#section-2.2.2 1. it was removed after some discussion: https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/46 http://http2.github.io/http2-spec/#changes.since.draft-ietf-httpbis-http2-01 (point 2; -01 was 2013-01 FYI) 2. we discussed it more on-list http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-http-wg/2013AprJun/0865.html
Received on Monday, 24 March 2014 20:43:27 UTC