Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames

James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25 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 3349221F9501 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:25:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.416
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.416 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.183, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XSRzknQvwoRz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:25:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E44B11E80E6 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:25:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ueu3K-0006Wf-Da for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:02 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 21:25:02 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ueu3K-0006Wf-Da@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Ueu39-00060v-7B for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:24:51 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.219.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <jasnell@gmail.com>) id 1Ueu38-0001G4-9q for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:24:51 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id l20so1548333oag.9 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IyApV1xjcUqyplFv95emLGBStakiDQ+T/vXWG3Sa7pc=; b=aCp6xz1P7ep4G9uknbIc4jPI5VQKGUMeh+SxfnECrKVFnwOhdsqvXbTy/iVVtAYjlQ 2fSL82zk//uyctP7m/9AemKiOTDSwFcC8fK9+n/IOj5GceFevXuujYljDQaa9qBe6zFe Q72RKAdmOkzFwahxZmO6SgRK5km5eJTng8AA+6/lPV9/dR0LEmLfgkh5nLZPpKGFNNry 9LRMbJEihPNO9q9p9GWFDFOdRzznQLqIwf+THzkK8hAyWPsci1lzkE4wHUXOvHUrORN7 dnEjhUGGYpoyYZ/rWMEXC9tEN/JZnq59y3MrvAAh3G91q4ZJW1TYo73z9iEkMuoEkFO3 Cc/w==
X-Received: by 10.60.16.69 with SMTP id e5mr2780885oed.46.1369171464313; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.60.3.137 with HTTP; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <hnnnp8dgpoliq8ca07n89p6apn41mmu2ta@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <CABP7Rbfb92Vxrmxj6fKdt+jpO_Qknq8FRjsu5GZW=17uoi4OFg@mail.gmail.com> <519BAB26.2010501@zinks.de> <4050.1369156663@critter.freebsd.dk> <fnlnp8t14lal0uk5suouc2uuk3uk4429dt@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <5267.1369169573@critter.freebsd.dk> <hnnnp8dgpoliq8ca07n89p6apn41mmu2ta@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 14:24:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbfynEZ--QMvyXmsGvqKDv2T9CbVCuBfVexNtmTa5_U_pQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.50; envelope-from=jasnell@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.650, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ueu38-0001G4-9q 65500db89c4725a0d293065d43a35f5a
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABP7RbfynEZ--QMvyXmsGvqKDv2T9CbVCuBfVexNtmTa5_U_pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18072
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>

This does not preclude the use of alternative compression schemes. If
someone chooses, it would be possible, for instance, to continue using
accept-/content-/transfer-encoding at the http semantic layer and
simply not set the GZIP flag on the DATA frame. Having the GZIP flag
would just provide an approach that would make that unnecessary in the
most common cases today. If, at some point in the future a new, more
efficient better compression algorithm overtakes gzip as the
predominant mechanism, the protocol can be updated to reflect that
fact (i.e. with a new protocol version string, etc).

On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:
> * Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>You forgot half the "worth-while" part:  The compatibility issues.
>>
>>Even something as trivial as "deflate" vs. "gzip" was too hard for
>>some people to get right.
>
> I think people will create an even bigger mess if they're forced to work
> around lack of support for alternative compression schemes in HTTP/2.0.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>