Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues

"Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net> Wed, 13 February 2013 21:30 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 9E1D021F8A98 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 ae5C8GPvqQ+T for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12E6921F8A90 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:30:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U5jtB-0005hZ-Ng for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:29:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:29:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U5jtB-0005hZ-Ng@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <eric@bisonsystems.net>) id 1U5jt4-0005gl-D7 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:29:06 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <eric@bisonsystems.net>) id 1U5jt2-0003Xh-93 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 21:29:06 +0000
Received: from WINBISON (unknown [65.117.211.162]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D0407509B6; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 16:28:41 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:28:32 -0700
From: "Eric J. Bowman" <eric@bisonsystems.net>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Julian F. Reschke" <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20130213142832.87b18c69492c2132054f86f6@bisonsystems.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7Rbea6L8D5E6pPTUt4LJDKH+mNAi1kRx4UJ=Jfs3X6rAHMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <50F6CD98.8080802@gmx.de> <99A8B4D1-BE1B-4965-9B78-1EC90455E102@mnot.net> <F4C2A095-50C7-451B-9AFF-A200592CCB4D@gbiv.com> <98F554C9-4FCB-47E4-A018-FE02558FEA49@mnot.net> <6E9D9BB9-A5F5-417A-A640-AF03AFCC6496@gbiv.com> <20130213080845.377e969d34ef48ae92aee519@bisonsystems.net> <CABP7Rbea6L8D5E6pPTUt4LJDKH+mNAi1kRx4UJ=Jfs3X6rAHMw@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Bison Systems Corporation
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=eric@bisonsystems.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.922, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1U5jt2-0003Xh-93 258adfcff4070d913d3b8ffbd0a3410a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #428 Accept-Language ordering for identical qvalues
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20130213142832.87b18c69492c2132054f86f6@bisonsystems.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16598
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>

James M Snell wrote:
>
> Well, considering that the http/2 discussion has already touched on
> the introduction of stateful compression, a potential switch to
> binary-header values, elimination of various elements such as response
> status-text and the host header, and so on, a discussion of
> eliminating conneg wouldn't be too extreme :-) ...
>

Nor would updating the WG charter to account for such changes ;-) ...

>
> The one thing to consider is that it ought to be at least possible to
> deprecate conneg without removing it entirely. We'll need to keep the
> mechanism around for http/1 interop and passthrough but we can say
> instruct developers that conneg ought to be avoided and we can
> discuss and highlight the appropriate alternatives.
> 

Which is exactly why I'd like to see this discussed further on the REST
list.  If the "solution" to conneg is to either require an extra round-
trip per request to indicate "compressed representation, please," or to
make compression stateful, then it's harder for me to buy into the
notion of server-driven negotiation as a "revolting feature."

IOW, I can't participate in a discussion about the way forward, if I
don't understand the problem with the status quo.  What am I missing?
I do think such theoretical architectural discussion belongs elsewhere;
at least as I see it, this list should be nuts-and-bolts protocol
writing.  I'm told this has been discussed before, links would help.

-Eric