Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Tue, 21 May 2013 20:21 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 E2EF311E80F7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 13:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=4.000, 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 WcKcwxygvv2i for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 13:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABA1711E80D2 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 13:21:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1Uet2w-000466-7R for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 20:20:34 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 20:20:34 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1Uet2w-000466-7R@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1Uet2j-000450-Tw for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 20:20:21 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1Uet2g-0007wg-L8 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 20:20:21 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.30]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MBYme-1UoGQ543La-00AZZn for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 22:19:52 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 May 2013 20:19:51 -0000
Received: from p5B230E8F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [91.35.14.143] by mail.gmx.net (mp030) with SMTP; 21 May 2013 22:19:51 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/P8vAHMr3POmeGa9xLi9/ChHsLCC7I4l1BGNR0+m h7/EWmH04Baelj
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Cc: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 22:19:51 +0200
Message-ID: <b8lnp8pgb7g2obrclktcej4mv074v0a6vm@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <CABP7Rbfb92Vxrmxj6fKdt+jpO_Qknq8FRjsu5GZW=17uoi4OFg@mail.gmail.com> <3818.1369153537@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: <3818.1369153537@critter.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=derhoermi@gmx.net; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.866, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.07, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1Uet2g-0007wg-L8 7438c2202af97c5770a6c2bf6aa95726
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/b8lnp8pgb7g2obrclktcej4mv074v0a6vm@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18067
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>

* Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>How about just nuking Accept-Encoding, and say that _all_ content is
>gzip'ed, but that it is allowed to use the '-0' uncompressed mode ?

In the Hybi Working Group many participants insisted on being able to
serve very large frames using `sendfile(...)`-style APIs. Deflate re-
quires sending additional data every couple of kilobytes, which would
interfere with that. I haven't studied the actual impact or how such
an argument applies to the most recent HTTP/2.0 proposals, and suspect
it's actually not a terribly big issue, but I would expect objections;
accordingly, such a proposal would have to come with some data that
alleviates concerns in this area.
-- 
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/