Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Tue, 28 May 2013 06:22 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 01ED321F8EA4 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 23:22:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.266
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.266 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.333, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2kvqZHE0EsaC for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 May 2013 23:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CBB21F8481 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 May 2013 23:22:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UhDH2-0008GS-1U for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 06:20:44 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 06:20:44 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhDH2-0008GS-1U@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UhDGo-0008F6-On for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 06:20:30 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1UhDGe-0001DV-MW for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 06:20:30 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.80] (unknown [118.209.184.230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5564E22E1FA; Tue, 28 May 2013 02:19:58 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.3 \(1503\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7Rbfb92Vxrmxj6fKdt+jpO_Qknq8FRjsu5GZW=17uoi4OFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 16:19:53 +1000
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6CD70CBA-B2CF-4FF4-8E94-8CB839C39F56@mnot.net>
References: <CABP7Rbfb92Vxrmxj6fKdt+jpO_Qknq8FRjsu5GZW=17uoi4OFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1503)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.373, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1UhDGe-0001DV-MW 73331d641fb7ff47a9577ae46ada738f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/6CD70CBA-B2CF-4FF4-8E94-8CB839C39F56@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18106
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>

Speaking personally - 

I'm -1 on this. The semantics you talk about *are* a property of the content, and you're embedding them in the transport.



On 22/05/2013, at 2:21 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:

> https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/100
> 
> Currently the spec includes a requirement that all user-agents MUST
> support gzip.. specifically:
> 
>  User-agents MUST support gzip compression.
>  Regardless of the Accept-Encoding sent by
>  the user-agent, the server may always send
>  content encoded with gzip or deflate encoding.
> 
> If we're going to include this requirement, it makes more sense to do
> this at the framing layer rather than the HTTP semantic layer. We can
> do so easily by defining a GZIP flag on the DATA frame type. If set,
> the payload of the DATA frame is compressed.
> 
> Doing so largely eliminates the need for the
> accept-/transfer-/content-encoding mechanisms at the http semantic
> layer.
> 

--
Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/