Re: current HTTP/2 spec prevents gzip of response to "Range" request

On Mar 28, 2014, at 13:36, "matthew@kerwin.net.au<mailto:matthew@kerwin.net.au>" <matthew@kerwin.net.au<mailto:matthew@kerwin.net.au>> wrote:

... I say leave the Content-Encoding part out of it, since that's covered elsewhere, and say something along the lines of "TE headers exist, and some of them include 'gzip'."

That was exactly our original motivation to start this thread! Transfer codings and their associated headers (i.e. TE, Transfer-Encoding) are forbidden by the HTTP/2 spec. That's what we'd like to see, at a minimum, changed...

from Section 8.1.3: "intermediaries SHOULD also remove other connection-specific header fields, such as ... Transfer-Encoding ..."

from Section 8.1.3: "...the TE header field, which MAY be present in an HTTP/2 request, but when it is MUST NOT contain any value other than "trailers"..."

Then somewhere else, like a completely different document, say "I strongly recommend that everyone support TE:gzip, because it's awesome." ...

Why couldn't support for TE:gzip be at least a RECOMMENDED level requirement. Are there implications wrt getting http/2 out the door?




This email message is intended only for the use of the named recipient. Information contained in this email message and its attachments may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, use or disclose this communication to others. Also please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.

Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 22:43:42 UTC