W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > July to September 2015

Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-httpbis-cice-02: (with DISCUSS)

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 12:09:41 +0200
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <55E81C65.7010504@greenbytes.de>
On 03.09.2015 11:47, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Hi Julian,
> On 03/09/15 09:48, Julian Reschke wrote:
>> On 2015-09-03 03:01, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>> On 03/09/15 01:52, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>>>> Something like this, perhaps?
>>>>     http://httpwg.github.io/specs/rfc7540.html#rfc.section.10.6
>>> Yes and no.
>>> No. The URL above is for HTTP/2 and this is a header usable in
>>> HTTP/1.1 so is not the same. Adding this to a system that is
>>> currently safe wrt BREACH is also perhaps not the same as doing
>>> HTTP/2 from scratch and ending up safe wrt BREACH.
>> Note that the spec doesn't really introduce compression for
>> client->server. This feature has been around for ages. All the spec does
>> is make feature discovery and diagnostics easier.
> I don't understand your last sentence above. Isn't this a signal
> that will cause request compression to be turned on in cases when
> it wasn't previously? If not, then I at least misread the text.
> If so, then the "All" in your sentence doesn't seem correct.

It may lead to more compression to be used; but compression can (and is) 
used without this feature.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 3 September 2015 10:09:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:14:46 UTC