Deployment of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice (Client-Initiated Content-Encoding)

Wenbo Zhu <> Fri, 16 June 2017 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63AF5120227 for <>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:37:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dMIvcQhwxOh1 for <>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:37:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2513D1201F2 for <>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1dLysr-0005as-1f for; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 21:34:25 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 21:34:25 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <>
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1dLysh-0005Zk-Sq for; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 21:34:15 +0000
Received: from ([]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <>) id 1dLysb-0002RG-Qk for; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 21:34:10 +0000
Received: by with SMTP id y25so5323378wrd.2 for <>; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CwxJWMQXdHF67dpOB8M3H61AwW5QLOstu75r8Zyqvww=; b=kbPjXBOZZM+C33yl0hqrIsPF0U8L8JctAp5hFvsJDg6QkAtEZupr6N85Ci1ho5ffVI ak/HmkI6QOdhqgrowZgX4c9wE0GF/CRw3Kvug8DdRpjC/YCEbXumQF5QE+lgD3537CLm unUGE/TgXYMW2MLUub0OTlBzRKAm+cohv6rC4lu5S94LS/E6w3Rq9uMIu9S8SDADyHZJ NMQQfIwxQxTiAhNXq7dp8wmpEj05H8HMcJCp5IDrzNlnRpREhpcMKIOeO0AD/5w3L5f4 2c9KzcFkrFQPzKb2mApdUMxnT48eW1eLR3DVuPNjZwVWBsRyuzIutMNKauyqOzt85nEd JAWg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=CwxJWMQXdHF67dpOB8M3H61AwW5QLOstu75r8Zyqvww=; b=BGKGcE1rxGvN2s5g7H4GBxkuKQdwBJV34MT5nc6+jATLLbNSgAugQXQ+wBLbx4rjmy kAc7Q0YKuxRdZa9tuScGG5QpN18+E0YgggxXB4XPhSMiDxdKjvTzxOPhg57/9hzVa37x /dTq7Lm5pptsoRCEsKx6WOs5mead8INdd3lAq8qA1U+4VG3I/9c+zwofYTuUD5v7izbo d4UKBP7zbBWEmWwiWpa7gkRiqLbC0uvmcQ6GdZVEhT719Ev1qBoF6HbI3NXeW+QmNEZ5 XBQ2CUYVYkAVVxe84U09kSAx6V+hwXuNdkAIhZI2gAe74rJZUDGFKXarBsEBRWjxvWFh /yaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOzhCYVGtgfFOT24a9ME401eDzg0ltNWOcKhIfDZ7sLjuvGBBuVO /Sz6L81jF04FMN8BjxS5UFxzXgS9bOXoecaNjA==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s89mr6482249wrc.38.1497648822605; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wenbo Zhu <>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:41 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: HTTP Working Group <>
Cc: Yoav Weiss <>, Takeshi Yoshino <>, Kenji Baheux <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113bff9c12444505521a8a9e"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=;;
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.961, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: 1dLysb-0002RG-Qk 675876444b7ff2ca3ef42e94e6664640
Subject: Deployment of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice (Client-Initiated Content-Encoding)
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailing-List: <> archive/latest/33986
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>


I am planning to start to advise A-E with 415 responses.

Questions to the working group:

1. Does CICE alone address the concern to support/enable request
compression in U-A?
2. I suspect the success rate of non-negotiated use of (gzip) request
compression will be very high over Internet, esp. if the server end-point
is managed by the content author. Any suggestion otherwise?
3. Any known deployment of gzip/brotli compression in browsers?


- Wenbo

From: Mark Nottingham <
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:43:21 +1000
Message-Id: <>
To: HTTP Working Group <

We haven't seen too much discussion on this draft after we adopted.
Working on the theory that this is because it's uncontroversial and
straightforward, I'm making a Working Group Last Call to solicit any
further issues, comment or support.


Please have a read through and bring any substantial issues up
on-list. Editorial issues can go straight to github:

If you support publication of the draft (whether or not you find
issues), that would be useful to know.

WGLC will end on 2015-06-22.


Mark Nottingham