We ran into a corner case in responding 415 to a br-compressed request on a server which hasn't enabled br support. When the client chooses to compress (br) an incompressible mime type (as the server decides), the server will advise "A-E: gzip" instead of "A-E: identity". On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 3:47 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote: > On 2017-06-16 23:33, Wenbo Zhu wrote: > > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cice> > > Actually: RFC 7694 (https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7694.html) > > > I am planning to start to advise A-E with 415 responses. > > Awesome! > > > Questions to the working group: > > > > 1. Does CICE alone address the concern to support/enable request > > compression in U-A? > > That was the intent of the spec. > > > 2. I suspect the success rate of non-negotiated use of (gzip) request > > compression will be very high over Internet, esp. if the server > > end-point is managed by the content author. Any suggestion otherwise? > > We've been using gzip-encoded request bodies for ages in WebDAV - just > not in browsers. > > > 3. Any known deployment of gzip/brotli compression in browsers? > > Might be of interest: > <https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1221461> (cc: Patrick :-). > > Best regards, Julian >Received on Monday, 3 October 2022 18:21:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 1 February 2023 02:18:31 UTC