IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns

Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 00:45 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 508E11A0294 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 17:45:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.792
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.792 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fr5DV54A2gKM for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 17:45:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E43681A0327 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 17:44:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XFBmr-0002jo-SZ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:42:33 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:42:33 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XFBmr-0002jo-SZ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <msweet@apple.com>) id 1XFBma-0002hg-Oi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:42:16 +0000
Received: from mail-out6.apple.com ([17.151.62.28] helo=mail-in6.apple.com) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <msweet@apple.com>) id 1XFBmZ-0006Eq-1U for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:42:16 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=apple.com; s=mailout2048s; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@apple.com; t=1407372108; x=2271285708; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-id:To:Cc:MIME-version:Content-type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-reply-to:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=7IJKELAjjaCPSfNtlzzO3HRzZ2um1yxWxiYXOVI//vE=; b=NE1xifF0GNOb/cuYRrH3DH5FHpF1tPKfU00jHFHUgJ1UUPrYxN27b9sfM2uN7j7C jFi//S7oD+WXUi2+bJ7j9k4G4EB5AVke2zkyZmCOo8h7bpUayU6ywUj1LlD3sWt7 f5Gr/37BICdSBZY0SGdnqR+LAlWQmBoSYjjJYnsat50qXYrxg4h48ntmK2cKEdeo PQPCTDBG7CjHdQm1iZXNDMh0a6LWze9IB1ZhR8Y0qYoiPihRN72/f5qC7BbKXs5n 5eG/eCJTCDeEYmhT40hNbdB4CnrWemhL2oaK7kPIQ9jZajtozYzHJ583Ks9q36O6 yi8x+L5lAL7NLNZBZ8qp1w==;
Received: from mail-out.apple.com (bramley.apple.com [17.151.62.49]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail-in6.apple.com (Apple Secure Mail Relay) with SMTP id E8.C4.32596.C4BC2E35; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 17:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-version: 1.0
Received: from relay4.apple.com ([17.128.113.87]) by local.mail-out.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.30.0 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTP id <0N9W003ADV8YT691@local.mail-out.apple.com> for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: 11973e15-f79d66d000007f54-76-53e2cb4ce24a
Received: from sesame.apple.com (sesame.apple.com [17.128.115.128]) (using TLS with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by relay4.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with SMTP id 62.DD.03493.05BC2E35; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 17:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [17.153.50.171] (unknown [17.153.50.171]) by sesame.apple.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.30.0 64bit (built Oct 22 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0N9W00DOVV9LVO90@sesame.apple.com> for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 17:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
Content-type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_030C7EA8-6663-4FE9-9C54-392E3FE13CF4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Michael Sweet <msweet@apple.com>
In-reply-to: <CAH_y2NHLz6GPPFxa2k1Ag=pWQwZbiEvLDkVbamAUA_VqX5kMYQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 20:41:48 -0400
Cc: Jason Greene <jason.greene@redhat.com>, David Krauss <potswa@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-id: <489B12BE-F5FC-44B7-B436-52591FFF9632@apple.com>
References: <a6ac313c7a0541bf8a9fa65ee6904d9f@SN2PR03MB046.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <35B8B43B-92FA-406C-BBC4-3D2EC053C9C9@gmail.com> <A4223B2F-7433-4820-9610-057D8D5CC4A5@apple.com> <549CFAFA-EF58-4AE6-90E8-17AB93C64D2E@redhat.com> <86C98AE1-C665-4B1C-A648-59EA1D92CC40@apple.com> <CAH_y2NHLz6GPPFxa2k1Ag=pWQwZbiEvLDkVbamAUA_VqX5kMYQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFupkkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42IRnG5nqOtz+lGwwcST0haHW2YxOTB6HJ23 nzWAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY+XXn8wFVyIqnvStY25gPBDUxcjJISFgIrF5wjkWCFtM4sK9 9WwgtpDATCaJwy3hIDavgKDEj8n3gGq4gOKzmCRuPvrEBNM88+sfVohEH5NE2/+rTBDOZCaJ lZOngI0SFlCTaD+9C6ydWWAKo8TiL9eYQRJsQInfk/pYQWxOgWCJTRMWgo1lEVCVuHx0IdhN zALlEmufrGSDuMNGYkfffHaIDa+ZJL59WgpWJCKgIvHu2VFmiJvkJT58OA5WJCFwiE3iW+d8 lgmMwrOQPDIL2SWzwLYkSczf/YgFwtaWWLbwNVCcA8jWkZi8kBFVGML+eP4IE4RtKvHk7XY2 CNta4uecR1D1ihJTuh+yL2DkWsUolJuYmaObmWeml1hQkJOql5yfu4kREneiOxjPrLI6xCjA wajEw/ug/lGwEGtiWXFl7iFGaQ4WJXHeI+ZAIYH0xJLU7NTUgtSi+KLSnNTiQ4xMHJxSDYyL Z8VNL/bebl/gcJdtkU7N4Wj1cx5ZMVNMVns8DLriGnlR94eSk/A5s6d1JkJVLJG8fDKHhOea 8RWGlajrPBeP873gyenXvEQv4dGrVkf2+8X7SzxTRD5cN0n+Ln5URc75392Nk+cb1uWmHWnd qBOlv88vvfSL1550iRy/C/omC1mizB91K7EUZyQaajEXFScCAIOcjaqcAgAA
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrNLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUi2FDcoBtw+lGwwdXD6haHW2YxOTB6HJ23 nzWAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY+XXn8wFVyIqnvStY25gPBDUxcjJISFgIjHz6x9WCFtM4sK9 9WwgtpBAH5PEjVv8XYxcQPZkJomVk6eAJYQF1CTaT+9iAbF5BQwkXv18zAxSxCwwhVFi8Zdr zCAJNqCi35P6wKZyCgRLbJqwkAnEZhFQlbh8dCFYM7NAucTaJyvZIAbZSOzom88Ose01k8S3 T0vBikQEVCTePTvKDHGevMSHD8fZJzDyz0KyfBay5bPABidJzN/9iAXC1pZYtvA1UJwDyNaR mLyQEVUYwv54/ggThG0q8eTtdjYI21ri55xHUPWKElO6H7IvYORaxShQlJqTWGmil1hQkJOq l5yfu4kRHA2F4TsY/y2zOsQowMGoxMP7oP5RsBBrYllxZe4hRhWgEY82rL7AKMWSl5+XqiTC 674SKM2bklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZz3Yu7tYCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUIpgsEwenVANjMpPP WcXvaXcdPupemGvE/VjhdAJzvcnJM61NX9W3cn9/t832BfuE2ZtXFc0Tr110Z7tk2pklW8rE tATEJy6N++f6PDLwmW23tUNd05L1G50iT7sqvNB+97z0s6b6Ke3dYt8M48T9GX/E9hy2nKs3 1Sal1GqS6AH5QwxO/iq6D8t+zpQXrn2oxFKckWioxVxUnAgAFxcIco4CAAA=
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=17.151.62.28; envelope-from=msweet@apple.com; helo=mail-in6.apple.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.661, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XFBmZ-0006Eq-1U 2f272ef7fc52367bcc90384c4f4ed37c
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: HPACK opcode bit patterns
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/489B12BE-F5FC-44B7-B436-52591FFF9632@apple.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26549
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>

Greg,

On Aug 6, 2014, at 6:22 PM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:
> ...
> Jetty pretty much has the same.   However I'm thinking that we will index Date as we often see batches of messages sent within the same second.

I thought the same, but when I index Date the header table gradually fills with Date headers and you eventually see (well, sort of) all of the headers "marching out" as new Date headers are added. That leads to re-indexing of the lost non-Date headers, etc.

> We are also currently never indexing set-cookie, but I admit to be confused about the need to do this or if it can just be without index?

You could decide based upon the use/requirement of https for the cookie - at least then you are protecting (never index) data that is normally encrypted vs. allowing indexing for cleartext...

_________________________________________________________
Michael Sweet, Senior Printing System Engineer, PWG Chair

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status