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

"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Sun, 20 January 2013 23:39 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 358EC21F874F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:39:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.149, 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 u93LmwSERG6O for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:39:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD5321F8718 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:39:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Tx4Tv-0008EW-Gg for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:39:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:39:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Tx4Tv-0008EW-Gg@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1Tx4Tr-0008Dj-9y for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:39:15 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([210.55.214.35]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1Tx4Tq-0000oo-4Z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:39:15 +0000
Received: From [192.168.0.10] (unverified [192.168.0.10]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v7.5.0 (Build 3481)) with SMTP id <0019475247@smtp.qbik.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 12:40:25 +1300
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Pablo <paa.listas@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:38:22 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
In-Reply-To: <DC03C924-9DCC-45CE-B9DB-5906EADAF9C4@mnot.net>
Message-Id: <em670f0a0f-3c5a-4f99-88cb-03bd4234ce63@bombed>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.17263.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=210.55.214.35; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.399, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Tx4Tq-0000oo-4Z b433d03de71e5b01d5b983cc2e2c25e7
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/em670f0a0f-3c5a-4f99-88cb-03bd4234ce63@bombed>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16056
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>

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.


------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: "Pablo" <paa.listas@gmail.com>; "HTTP Working Group" 
<ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 21/01/2013 12:04:08 p.m.
Subject: Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good
>In one of our recent meetings, one of the grey-bearded IETF old-timers 
>(I forget which, sorry) said that a textual-protocol was a 
>nice-to-have, but that it shouldn't be a determining factor in design.
>
>I.e., if you can get everything you need out of a protocol, *and* make 
>it textual, do so, but if it detracts from the value you get from it, 
>don't let that constrain you.
>
>FWIW, I think that's a good rule of thumb. However, this means that the 
>community is going to need *excellent* tooling for analysing, 
>debugging, etc. HTTP traffic; and I don't just mean a Wireshark plugin!
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>On 21/01/2013, at 9:36 AM, William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org> 
>wrote:
>
>>  There are many advantages to using binary data. If you would like a
>>  textual representation of a protocol, I advise using a utility to
>>  generate one for you.
>>
>>  On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Pablo <paa.listas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>  Hello,
>>>
>>>    I have readed this document
>>>  http://dev.chromium.org/spdy/spdy-protocol/spdy-protocol-draft1 
>>>today [1].
>>>
>>>  I just wanted to say that I think that the use of any binary data 
>>>(framing,
>>>  header compression, etc.) in any place of the "header" part of HTTP 
>>>protocol
>>>  is not good; so, please only use plaintext for HTTP 2.0 because, 
>>>otherwise,
>>>  that will make very difficult to "see" the headers's protocol :)
>>>
>>>  Thats all,
>>>  Thanks for reading this few lines, sorry for my basic English, and I 
>>>hope
>>>  that you can re-think all this of using binary data in any part of 
>>>HTTP X.X
>>>  (ej: session layer).
>>>
>>>
>>>  [1] I started knowing about HTTP 2.0 here:
>>>  http://webscannotes.com/2012/10/09/http-2-0-officially-in-the-works/
>>>
>>
>
>--
>Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>