Re: Broader discussion - limit dictionary encoding to one compression algorithm?

Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com> Tue, 21 May 2024 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=ietf.org@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 AB445C23D895 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.85
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.85 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=w3.org header.b="a9pj8cBq"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=w3.org header.b="qCoB+LBv"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.b="fV1UFGaw"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sym-RYvLsYF8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mab.w3.org (mab.w3.org [IPv6:2600:1f18:7d7a:2700:d091:4b25:8566:8113]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F7AEC090377 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:03:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=w3.org; s=s1; h=Subject:Content-Type:Cc:To:Message-ID:Date:From:In-Reply-To: References:MIME-Version:Reply-To; bh=YqOOfhZvrVniVeOm+F41YNySBh8be1HlXUKTWB+t/2Y=; b=a9pj8cBqHGC1kFpeJZbCaM0pc3 l6PaKRUnqzS2/aq+aKKTWqfrifjCaxN5Ri+mA++YKJFDQjmR/fdtxuCBf44H2aQUkxRHHfdEXJgqi cz+7RJ6+75mfWgIa6evb+wu4SqCfPeBq8PV2jxHHpOeOJsZHZjGP05H0rBSvQm4BhqCWC/hbS24Wt VRe+f7/FG8rC8tSMbFH7qZKwcbMgHCrsBDdV2ZUYQPYvCgZHiccR8vKaGpcu0LAXyuCLziHNuDA9Q CmioAeVUqco9moySSksRNTKkuC1J4P7IZ9c93mSREluuWtxEfWSpROpyUhTeuxBKEXWRnf7qj8en7 jcQymT2w==;
Received: from lists by mab.w3.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1s9St0-00FMJa-1h for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:02:50 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 17:02:50 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1s9St0-00FMJa-1h@mab.w3.org>
Received: from ip-10-0-0-224.ec2.internal ([10.0.0.224] helo=puck.w3.org) by mab.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <patmeenan@gmail.com>) id 1s9Ssy-00FMIe-1p for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.internal; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:02:48 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=w3.org; s=s1; h=Content-Type:Cc:To:Subject:Message-ID:Date:From:In-Reply-To: References:MIME-Version:Reply-To; bh=YqOOfhZvrVniVeOm+F41YNySBh8be1HlXUKTWB+t/2Y=; t=1716310968; x=1717174968; b=qCoB+LBvVmTLNfE1Wg3OlzHqYpMak35pl6VWHBvyTuP/PzXKvNmZkqN5oJZdtP+zSlWyWdUCmf2 46V3Vy+lY3Gz9DXk+XxVAk5kWIHDOwxGbKTG46/QofcOOS2XGkXOkEgjhl7qqQhC82W1TCbKcjH06 S/5oN8iyKvlUy+2FIyr3yfWVylJEvwwauiOC7K1eqDHR2H+JsEbDeVMNcouLWq/fwSxesmMOGQqav bh5igibc4FHhXVYqBsJrvjwwAq3TmmQWR+3eVNDKFWft2W6+37o3oiVZ14zRLFL1mHlGdyCTG6Psk 8ZFG1gVfvISDSnWxXEOokeQABsVdPGOk1NuA==;
Received-SPF: pass (puck.w3.org: domain of gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::131 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::131; envelope-from=patmeenan@gmail.com; helo=mail-lf1-x131.google.com;
Received: from mail-lf1-x131.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::131]) by puck.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from <patmeenan@gmail.com>) id 1s9Ssy-00H6er-04 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2024 17:02:48 +0000
Received: by mail-lf1-x131.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5210684cee6so5725925e87.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:02:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1716310964; x=1716915764; darn=w3.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YqOOfhZvrVniVeOm+F41YNySBh8be1HlXUKTWB+t/2Y=; b=fV1UFGaw5VyCBie21v7H49tXpNd++i1zR7OC5J63v56TNfoVFWrnG8t+PUD+mkNf24 INj5FXK9ARrysefqey6PIK2noyFzh6gUxbI75HnYlmsDXZ/z/FhEhAjT0+PzRh904fMH 0B4mUxEblRMdUUvaN4rXTE5oIzJFF5Z7nZt5n3yEN2rUc92gqV5RojADdTBBs3MdqLwG 5nEmvav0Fk8eWGFZuJpBlhFmEzHYIjnAH5Ql0LHguo34hcE0TlJOaGSpuzQh/hmHcSIj Aob9ycgFYf57TiKt7w7Il2uu7/l5bvFPS5UHqqQmxqZXdS9bMc17Cy+E/tFJ9Kpl9NRG Dncg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1716310964; x=1716915764; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=YqOOfhZvrVniVeOm+F41YNySBh8be1HlXUKTWB+t/2Y=; b=FlJyak6J8+8TMaeOslDPQ0j6jlRT01NVrD3xSgDUx0ItH1QO5ykKdzg9zEYxxc/xxV sa9+cecMpYYZ9Y59uVYRNP7P29z8ywKMTXonfmvsr8NalfZkH+0q8pcoL64yTy4sSoQC eJrXDfRg1WePL/NWT3tvQocR9EnhDGwlGYwvN9Al1u6OWadbBpuCtnp3Y5DALwBaIuSW ZW5GOJiPVphkEyR3juy2/mHdCRG3MDl86S/jFNdlNekQVVTcmEqmW/h+hfTu9r27wlpc c8dtadZakb8EUAb8rbtBK2mhiI6PaKa4kQV5dDdnoUnCePl+IuVSzqDRNulQJPFzwJXs nSUA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxDDIwUPjwmy9Ta9HTxNS6AvW5jIahsAydRW8w2VAbpEokFnAc8 8JZfSDZvgPrYkhX6q+SjiB/e+O4Bs7V7wB9CbZ9S0jwd49R06a2MEt0rYUVtBGbI+yRoL1F5FKn VALOS7a972EZQ791x1103PKUKFDtEyA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHW8Hlw5XG2K2XuzCRk+DIKApntgOZS1fJYG+QvtvRYXmwjEecMGJSROFwXC/QbxwZRelpH/y+tRvLjD7DdvQo=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:4e0b:0:b0:523:41ba:a289 with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-52341baa348mr19731276e87.4.1716310963383; Tue, 21 May 2024 10:02:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAJV+MGzjUnZZ=XFn5veOvuhVWyZNP2b9U0fxpS3UmrDC_bc_wQ@mail.gmail.com> <202405211641.44LGfY2U006906@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <202405211641.44LGfY2U006906@critter.freebsd.dk>
From: Patrick Meenan <patmeenan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 13:02:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJV+MGzwbFAC7NhP611HDaVYMjMX0Q+KZ-QYirFu5WzjWL771g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004bf7150618f9c96c"
X-W3C-Hub-DKIM-Status: validation passed: (address=patmeenan@gmail.com domain=gmail.com), signature is good
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, DMARC_PASS=-0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: puck.w3.org 1s9Ssy-00H6er-04 7dfb013454158d1c837031c7fe847bce
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Broader discussion - limit dictionary encoding to one compression algorithm?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/CAJV+MGzwbFAC7NhP611HDaVYMjMX0Q+KZ-QYirFu5WzjWL771g@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/51954
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: <https://www.w3.org/email/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Tue, May 21, 2024 at 12:41 PM Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
wrote:

> Patrick Meenan writes:
>
> > ** The case for a single content-encoding:
> > […]
> > ** The case for both Brotli and Zstandard:
>
> First, those are not really the two choices before us.
>
> Option one is:  Pick one single algorithm
>
> Option two is:  Add a negotiation mechanism and seed a new IANA registry
> with those two algorithms
>
> As far as I can tell, there are no credible data which shows any
> performance difference between the two, and no of reason to think that any
> future compression algorithm will do significantly better.
>

We already have a negotiation mechanism.  It uses "Accept-Encoding" and
"Content-Encoding" and the existing registry. Nothing about the negotiation
changes if we use one, two or more. The question is if we specify and
register the "dcb" content-encoding as well as the "dcz" content encoding
as part of this draft or if we only register one (or if we also add a
restriction that no other content encodings can use the dictionary
negotiation).

As far as future encodings, we don't know if any algorithms will do better
but there is the potential for content-aware delta encodings to do better
(with things like reallocated addresses in WASM, etc). More likely, there
will probably come a time where someone wants to delta-encode
multi-gigabyte resources where the 50/128MB limitations laid out for "dcb"
and "dcz" won't work and a "large window" variant may need to be specified
(as a new content encoding).