Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Mon, 21 January 2013 00:07 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 B9B1A21F868D for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:07:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.812
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.812 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.112, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 6L8b0T+y2Nug for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:07:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F34A721F86BC for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:06:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tx4uB-0004Q0-Ey for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:06:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:06:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tx4uB-0004Q0-Ey@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Tx4u4-0004OU-Lm for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:06:20 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1Tx4u1-0001J7-0I for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 00:06:20 +0000
Received: from mnot-mini.mnot.net (unknown [118.209.240.13]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 176F222E257; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:05:53 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYiPRpm0OWesf5wTGLX--HWtDmgjFr+wSEEVr-beH8J=qw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:05:50 +1100
Cc: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, Pablo <paa.listas@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3EFE45C2-8147-432C-8D15-7E8C5AEC39DC@mnot.net>
References: <em670f0a0f-3c5a-4f99-88cb-03bd4234ce63@bombed> <7F8E363D-6D6E-4FDD-B8EA-24A31383B1A3@mnot.net> <CAA4WUYiPRpm0OWesf5wTGLX--HWtDmgjFr+wSEEVr-beH8J=qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
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=-4.2
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.272, BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Tx4u1-0001J7-0I 506a44799f707e1695db4609f75d4f14
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3EFE45C2-8147-432C-8D15-7E8C5AEC39DC@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16065
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>

It was discussed in terms of disabling it at the sender, not through negotiation, so I don't think the case you're talking about is going to be a problem.


On 21/01/2013, at 10:55 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> wrote:

> Maybe it falls upon me to be the voice of concern here :) Depending on
> what a "debug" option entails, I'm worried about it being used to
> disable a performance feature. As an example of how options can be
> dangerous, we've seen intermediaries that strip out Accept-Encoding
> headers in order to force responses to be uncompressed (probably so
> they can inspect the payloads more easily/cheaply), which is an issue
> from a web performance perspective.
> 
> Back to the use case, if you're in a position to use the debug option,
> is it likely that you would not also be in a position to capture
> enough to decode? I'd like to understand the use case so I can
> properly weigh the benefit of such an option, in contrast to the cost
> that I highlighted above.
> 
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:
>> 
>> On 21/01/2013, at 10:38 AM, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> the thing that will make debugging harder won't be binary vs text, but the inter-dependence of messages.  Especially when it comes to looking through debug logs for issues.
>>> 
>>> On-the-wire, you already need to piece together a TCP stream to see what's going on, so having http messages effectively split over multiple frames (e.g. delta encoding, or compression) only becomes a problem when you don't capture enough to decode.
>>> 
>>> I think it might be worth-while specifying a requirement for a "debug" option for senders of binary messages which turns off all other optimisations, such as caching unchanged headers etc (so they are sent every time).  Just an idea.
>> 
>> That's been brought up a few times, and the reaction has been pretty positive.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Mark Nottingham   http://www.mnot.net/
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

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