Re: Compression update

Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> Thu, 11 July 2013 02:58 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 3682C21F97E6 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.539
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.539 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.060, 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 Z+g-d25aIBHp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B77DF11E80BA for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jul 2013 19:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Ux757-0000sW-CN for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:58:09 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:58:09 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Ux757-0000sW-CN@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Ux74y-0000rn-Ni for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:58:00 +0000
Received: from ip-58-28-153-233.static-xdsl.xnet.co.nz ([58.28.153.233] helo=treenet.co.nz) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1Ux74y-0006WJ-1v for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:58:00 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.218] (ip202-27-218-168.satlan.co.nz [202.27.218.168]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AE86E6EAF for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:57:38 +1200 (NZST)
Message-ID: <51DE1F1C.70402@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 14:57:32 +1200
From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <CABkgnnVzrL3wju1iJ2eDETpGtn4J6+vJe19GZTHnX5OayBhr6Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVzrL3wju1iJ2eDETpGtn4J6+vJe19GZTHnX5OayBhr6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=58.28.153.233; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.449, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1Ux74y-0006WJ-1v 36728305ea9e328956b5a5d1fbdafdbb
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Compression update
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/51DE1F1C.70402@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18686
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 11/07/2013 8:36 a.m., Martin Thomson wrote:
> The header compression draft has been revised and aside from some
> clarifications, it includes a changed eviction algorithm.
>
> Are the working group comfortable - particularly those who are
> implementing this for the Hamburg interim - with the revised
> algorithm?
>
> Also, I'd like opinions on whether -05 should be issued to refer to
> this draft, or whether we can get by with -04.  I really want to avoid
> any confusion over what string we are negotiating if it comes to ALPN,
> NPN or Upgrade negotiation.  Currently, that string is
> "HTTP-draft-04/2.0", updating to -05 would likely require that people
> negotiate "HTTP-draft-05/2.0".
>

IMHO doing so would be a Good Thing. It gives the Hamburg 
implementations a run for their money on the draft-specific detection 
and handling code. Which will be important to have working interoperable 
as much as any other part of the spec.

Amos