- From: Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 09:23:32 -0400
- To: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJV+MGwxomC4ez5cfw=1ojZK_h84+TrfU62e-gED6owT5vytkg@mail.gmail.com>
We're making good progress on the compression dictionary encoding (thank you to everyone for your help). There are 5 issues in-flight right now that I wanted to bring to the attention of the wider group: 1. Include the dictionary hash in the response stream: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2770 Currently the hash used to compress a resource is communicated through the Content-Dictionary response header which is potentially fragile. There is discussion about creating a stream encoding that has a header before the raw brotli/Zstandard stream with the dictionary hash (and potentially a magic signature). 2. Pick one compression algorithm: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2756 There is some concern that shipping both brotli and Zstandard will fragment the ecosystem and require all clients to implement both algorithms (or servers to support both if some clients do not). 3. Zstandard compression window: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2754 Zstandard can only use the dictionary until the input passes the size of the compression window (brotli has it available independent of the compression window). There is discussion about what an appropriate window size to use would be to allow clients to control their memory use while still allowing for large delta-compression cases. Current discussion is around setting it to the larger of 8 MB and 1.25x the dictionary size. 4. Link relation: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2772 We need to add the definition for the link relation for compression dictionaries (i.e. the HTML case where a separate dictionary should be fetched for future requests). The current Chrome origin trial uses "dictionary" but that is a bit too generic to use up for this use case. "compression-dictionary" is appropriate but might be a bit long to include in a header. 5. Hash format in HTTP Headers: https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues/2781 There is some discussion of how the dictionary hashes should be represented in HTTP headers. The main tension is between developer-friendliness of the original hex encoding and the shorter (and more correct) sf-binary representation.
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2024 13:23:49 UTC