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

Re: h2 header field names

From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2014 09:38:12 -0400
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-id: <C1CDE62E-057A-49CC-AF84-BE77DF3D35E5@apple.com>
To: Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com>
Martin,

Seems like binary header values would require some indication in the HPACK encoding that those headers contain binary data, so that 2.0-to-1.1 proxy can convert the binary data to Base64.  And *that* seems fraught with interoperability issues since then a 1.1-to-2.0 proxy will either a) need to know which headers want binary encoding or b) make some guess based on the value being all Base64.

Regardless, what are you trying to accomplish with binary header values?


On Sep 4, 2014, at 9:25 AM, Martin Nilsson <nilsson@opera.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:02:15 +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> But I havn't seen *anybody* say that need to be able to put NUL,
>> STX or ANSI-escape sequences in HTTTP headers, so I don't understand
>> why can't we outlaw them in HTTP/2.0, even if we don't settle the
>> ASCII/UTF-8 question yet ?
>> 
>> IMO nothing *in* the headers should contain 0x00-0x1f or 0x7f.
>> 
>> What makes that decision impossible ?
>> 
> 
> I want to be able to send binary header values as soon as possible, to get rid of all layers of base-n encoding. The names makes perfect sense as ASCII only.
> 
> /Martin Nilsson
> 
> -- 
> Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> 

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair



Received on Thursday, 4 September 2014 13:38:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 9 September 2019 17:48:21 UTC