- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 07:14:22 +0000
- To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- cc: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
-------- In message <20160717054057.GD23841@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes: >It [JSON] might appear as a bad solution but the least bad of all other ones. The first half I can certainly agree with. But the second half is far from obvious to me, and I nowhere have I seen anything like a survey or analysis saying so. For me it is a question of consequences. I don't want us to be stuck with mandatory JSON if/when we attempt a HTTP/3 protocol, unless we already now address and somehow neuter/ manage the worst of the trouble JSON comes with[1]. If we limit JSON to only end-to-end headers, H3 will only need to be able to move them, and never have to parse them. But if we allow JSON to creep into 'transport headers', as Julians "Accept:" example seems to both imply and promise, we will be stuck with JSON *forever*. Do you feel like parsing JSON in a 100Gbit/sec load-balancer ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 17 July 2016 07:14:50 UTC