Re: JFV and Common Structure specifications

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 22 November 2016 00:03 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 C45EF1294B0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:03:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.998 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_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 vtax6OQE9i8P for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:03:54 -0800 (PST)
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 43CF512940C for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 16:03:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1c8yVS-0000pL-0f for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:14 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:14 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1c8yVS-0000pL-0f@frink.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c8yVL-0006QL-Nr for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:07 +0000
Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com ([209.85.216.173]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from <martin.thomson@gmail.com>) id 1c8yVF-0006Bb-Lt for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:02 +0000
Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c47so1048259qtc.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:59:41 -0800 (PST)
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; bh=/vfTWh+qvvT9r1s/MBmSlxP2Adq62kdnRirQKQRHVEU=; b=dpn+a2DauQtBtcnZG/Vci10HENuUVEufJReYk0VRWNzbDmwpBXclWy87uG2uFw6Zhs F1Ef33mm4ZE4I9GTM7QnWdIrI0OumvQn7Bn50MTrC6s64Emrtvg5nBlh7xkEAQxl6Izw HBFusUumqRsLG762MwjZj3IFd4IqGbCXVsJxKOduLetFnxEzp2UhRX9d6GwM4ALk17fT y7A4gmJKpB6PIIBpiN0ZDKzSqUeChsOWpS5CsFj5/SzTypmWWpPvWRvXVAt4XHmUvul3 VDJofFzMP3Q7PMqZk2YICJaXsy6PRhadXenXOkk/YTS1JZB77XwdFqErzNlvWmiqr7uF LN4g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=/vfTWh+qvvT9r1s/MBmSlxP2Adq62kdnRirQKQRHVEU=; b=F0S5yljepZhRqADcmfavlHBI7Ay8RH7jOXKbH7iwBGp/+caQ15jL3R4lY6hjNr2L52 TBsYdVGBp2WPA/wswdIi7Vg2oTVlnDHjiRDPQQr18RwkihCcBgde50esQrFrXm4567vT vSg6sOmkqUE2Xs6JFx/jOw6Nc8W7vinTiYg5hN6qoDtzOvverdK5d161GMCJ5OiNEB4G fMPctlv9AT6zfg2+RgXpGJfBItufaQQZ8xUaQDZjLzlVEjeeaw0kPy/eZWaCl3fTpvHS DZZLURUCsBklx5x/bMDDpNkHlO/e/jv+FOCjTGERrxIZxOQaJFZ8HP5qAljOjQIx/snX /idA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01sBKq0Lcxl7Aexs0GN4Cufi+0V6adX+9LdbuTJuRz/cfZS8BVHkLf0FbgYz01rhtN4zwiuaJ6Cd+S5Kg==
X-Received: by 10.200.48.28 with SMTP id f28mr11256955qte.247.1479772775592; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:59:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.85.101 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2016 15:59:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <98329.1479720181@critter.freebsd.dk>
References: <3A206EA7-57FB-4913-BC08-445BD2EFA783@mnot.net> <CABkgnnV8=2_sR-B-6e9Haxi+4M4DF4V7f3CWCVvXDHNN_SkTKw@mail.gmail.com> <98329.1479720181@critter.freebsd.dk>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:59:35 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVqH6TPi0OJ5iecYBj2gRich+DMLnxxQJcw9Qn6n-JPBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.216.173; envelope-from=martin.thomson@gmail.com; helo=mail-qt0-f173.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1c8yVF-0006Bb-Lt 202b4d696f99927bf806a3f5a0e1eaf7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: JFV and Common Structure specifications
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABkgnnVqH6TPi0OJ5iecYBj2gRich+DMLnxxQJcw9Qn6n-JPBA@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32951
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 21 November 2016 at 20:23, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> I think using the angle brackets to say "this header is common
> structure" for privately defined headers should be part of this
> draft, so the future HPACKbis/H3 can semantically compress them
> without needing a white-list.

I'm not yet convinced here.  If that usage came with some other
guarantees (around whitespace use, for example, then maybe the
benefits would outweigh the costs.  I'm definitely opposed to
recursion on the basis that complexity could kill this.

> PS: I'm personally not terribly happy about the name "Common
> Structure", but I found "Http-Header Data Model" even worse.