Re: JSON headers

Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de> Tue, 12 July 2016 07:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 6152A12D6B8 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:46:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.308
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.308 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=ABVRFL9x; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=greenbytes.de header.b=UTmorCNK
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 tOle_1Y-Y9RJ for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B28512B062 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bMsKM-0005UR-Qk for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:41:58 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:41:58 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bMsKM-0005UR-Qk@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>) id 1bMsKK-0005Tc-Rt for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:41:56 +0000
Received: from mail.greenbytes.de ([5.10.171.186]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>) id 1bMsKI-0000wj-6g for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 07:41:56 +0000
Received: by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix, from userid 117) id 2C5D615A364D; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:41:26 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1468309286; bh=vY5caYIJ7R1A3iWVYHX2L8kqx+grxcQtXP4xTD2YLFE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ABVRFL9xXgXHUbxG5RPN1iYI/57nhHRViHlHXZNYYjYlOeOTZtvynKBrRvMoiUbuH +zzJ+Fh1ByoJJY35OTIPgQmchdq9H5lhr35NrxRkXDpOSrh54NVxYWS/qGHJ6ZvUhV jgctjWPk03vkQGG9trTqUvnXT339gslFXymvZpVQ=
Received: from [192.168.178.20] (unknown [93.217.93.203]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.greenbytes.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B80ED15A0413; Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:41:25 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=greenbytes.de; s=mail; t=1468309285; bh=vY5caYIJ7R1A3iWVYHX2L8kqx+grxcQtXP4xTD2YLFE=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=UTmorCNKVq5691UwlWiyeSPWFAevxFHBo7ll16OAAsYgDYz5UDoC4K1wjnbtYzAUF oRT5QZ7ykIiaNh3uNMyRdio1jCAFfdCcQKPVGET0/8fNGzUvcsXaaTIh9GrRoTa4z+ 8Pokg5hbWwq/yzYlEBJyMHCcCFTy3sIflzsSwaEw=
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <8251.1468229350@critter.freebsd.dk> <e9a55629-656c-3b6a-3ac4-5fb7a109b2f0@gmx.de> <8739.1468234635@critter.freebsd.dk> <38b3e7bb-3202-f489-ff15-d4d545e13ca0@gmx.de> <8854.1468236033@critter.freebsd.dk> <326f0b93-dbd5-3dfb-2a35-d1bf084684b4@gmx.de> <9221.1468245597@critter.freebsd.dk> <aa9cee9c-d8e3-17ba-9fcd-e327575cd5a8@gmx.de> <9801.1468259070@critter.freebsd.dk> <15d27f23-6b51-1e8e-3f10-194c80570424@gmx.de> <20160711190107.GB9542@1wt.eu> <0e467573-4f68-80a5-14a4-5a63b41ac4d4@gmx.de> <57841F4A.30901@tzi.org> <57e2c1b6-749f-c697-5c92-15eeb44b303b@gmx.de> <57849130.4060104@tzi.org> <928f8531-6573-caf6-50c1-1672cc020959@gmx.de> <11907e5a-bab7-ec9b-2bd4-e8447573edf4@treenet.co.nz>
From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@greenbytes.de>
Message-ID: <18cb7198-9301-f3b3-0f0d-4de789afce07@greenbytes.de>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 09:41:25 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <11907e5a-bab7-ec9b-2bd4-e8447573edf4@treenet.co.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=5.10.171.186; envelope-from=julian.reschke@greenbytes.de; helo=mail.greenbytes.de
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.278, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bMsKI-0000wj-6g c47cee49edf73744c39bcaa5cf1990b2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: JSON headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/18cb7198-9301-f3b3-0f0d-4de789afce07@greenbytes.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31920
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>

On 2016-07-12 09:10, Amos Jeffries wrote:
> ...
> Personally I hope we don't.
>
> I was fine with it as a way to write ABNF-like descriptions in future
> RFCs to make everyones custom headers have a more generic syntax that
> our parsers could handle easier.
>
> But using a textual representation on the wire for future improvements
> is something we should be looking at avoiding, not encouraging.
>
> HTTP/2 HPACK offers some new possibilities by adding integer encoding
> for header field-value that the recipient is not required to write in
> textual format before processing. Lets not throw that advantage away.

HPACK, as defined, does not allow it.

A future version might (requiring to bump up the protocol version).

One goal of a common syntax for field values of course is to later on 
take advantage of it, just the way you said.

Best regards, Julian