- From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2016 09:23:01 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
-------- In message <CABkgnnV8=2_sR-B-6e9Haxi+4M4DF4V7f3CWCVvXDHNN_SkTKw@mail.gmail.com>, Martin Thomson writes: >On 21 November 2016 at 13:38, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote: >> The feeling in the room was that we should abandon the JFV draft >and adopt the structure draft in its place, with the understanding >that it better reflected our current thinking in this area. > >This seems like a good plan. PHK's work is closer to what we do today >and therefore less disruptive. > >We discussed some of the more ambitious features of the common >structure document, such as integer dates and the angle bracket; is >the intent to pursue these separately? My personal opinion: Yes, and no, in that order. The integer date is only a "gedankenexperiment" in this draft, included simply to indicate one potential future benefit of CS. To actually deploy integer Date in CS format in H1, will require a separate draft which goes into how detection/negotiation works. A HPACKbis or H3 protocol could/should use a binary CS serialization and could decide to convert H1 Date headers to CS integers during transmission, but that would also be in a separate draft. I think using the angle brackets to say "this header is common structure" for privately defined headers should be part of this draft, so the future HPACKbis/H3 can semantically compress them without needing a white-list. There is a good argument for also decorating future standardized headers with ><, so that the IANA registry white-list does not need to be monitored in (near) real-time. I also think we should keep the angle brackets/recursion "trick", so that complex data structures can be built for privately defined headers. Recursion is what makes it possible to convert 1:1 from JSON to CS and back. But we should probably caution or even SHALL NOT against using recursion in standardized headers. Poul-Henning PS: I'm personally not terribly happy about the name "Common Structure", but I found "Http-Header Data Model" even worse. -- 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 Monday, 21 November 2016 09:23:32 UTC