IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good

Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com> Tue, 22 January 2013 10:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E78F21F8800 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:30:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.672
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.672 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.287, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, SARE_OBFU_MILLIONS=1.213]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IhCnmVvoG2WX for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:30:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7024721F87EE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:30:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Txb7A-0001gw-HB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:30:00 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:30:00 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Txb7A-0001gw-HB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Txb76-0001ZC-1h for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:29:56 +0000
Received: from mail-la0-f42.google.com ([209.85.215.42]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <grmocg@gmail.com>) id 1Txb75-00070p-07 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 10:29:56 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f42.google.com with SMTP id fe20so7268985lab.15 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:29:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=akMeGLO9PM9bitvO98dj3mTxl2MXMFDKeEH/JylrOwo=; b=CHcUPp//ZkmcEXFB8eFeUgUW6dn5LLoP1nv7jBAJUXLXWGHe9RuqCdXOwlDBfu5c9G 7NyIFvW4MkMJMVsIrGSeEgFrb7oE+KJ6QT16G53QeYlIrB0JUTc4ZXLvn0ftUVCgTlHG lNliyTuznnEedh8uJITqIRnMjnPIxHSi0BT+XUVeiPqW1XpufFVvFA5sf35a9wCjwW4L KoCRISQiCUERdV5307vdwE8HRTaa+4JOGn9eg8+DtnBm33JPDqY1viG600L2HJPPQD76 Qk5lp7jAZtgamt8qR14sX/4fL/4GJ+MjiU8i599gol+w20nlGZqkfbgX4y44B2U/xd1F ZezQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.133.52 with SMTP id oz20mr2119045lab.30.1358850567915; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:29:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.5 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:29:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <50FE6982.3040205@treenet.co.nz>
References: <emaeef5a13-0231-4bb4-832b-ef931267baed@bombed> <50FE6982.3040205@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 02:29:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAP+FsNeGmNzOkXWNTdC80-+7ieVeBz_ozskPW3x_LvWW7M7kjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0435c24c67478504d3de0d67"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.215.42; envelope-from=grmocg@gmail.com; helo=mail-la0-f42.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.624, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Txb75-00070p-07 4c5a609e619e369a2c70b49774076861
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAP+FsNeGmNzOkXWNTdC80-+7ieVeBz_ozskPW3x_LvWW7M7kjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16104
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Ya, that still sounds bad :)
(Too bad self-modifying code is the hallmark of a virus these days...)
-=R


On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 22/01/2013 10:33 p.m., Adrien W. de Croy wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ------ Original Message ------
>> From: "Nico Williams" <nico@cryptonector.com>
>>
>>>
>>> We could also go with receiver-makes right. In this case every
>>> message (request, response) must include a BOM and then the receiver
>>> makes right. This strikes me as fair, if not, perhaps, compelling..
>>>
>> I'd rather have a milllion htons and ntohs than having to procede each
>> one with an if statement as well.
>>
>> so I think this is a bad idea
>>
>>
> You could optimize by writing two parsers in complete duplicate and
> switching between them on sighting the BOM.
> It only doubles the memory footprint instead of the CPU footprint. ;-)
>
> Amos
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email