- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:51:26 +0200
- To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Kazuho Oku <kazuhooku@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2016-07-18 16:38, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message <01f2be81-5fd2-1af5-97f6-75c51ae9cc2c@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes > : >> On 2016-07-18 15:00, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >>> ... >>>> That's a fine thing to do, but how would it help for HTTP/2? >>> >>> We left a lot of low hanging fruit on the tree with HPACK, notably >>> the Date header. >>> >>> If we decide to do structured headers, they might be another good >>> reason for HPACK2, which could then know about these fields and >>> do the smart thing. >>> ... >> >> Agreed, but changing HPACK implies revising HTTP/2, thus HTTP/3, right?? > > Maybe, but for HTTP/3 we should have even higher ambitions, so maybe > a better HPACK for H2 is a good partial goal. AFAIU, there can not be such as thing as a "better HPACK" for HTTP/2, because we can't revise HPACK without also revising HTTP/2. Best regards, Julian
Received on Monday, 18 July 2016 14:52:21 UTC