IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: JSON headers

Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk> Mon, 11 July 2016 10:24 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 5B8EE12D0EE for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-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 (2048-bit key) header.d=lukasa-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.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 HfY68l5nFr5l for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:24:39 -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 2540512D0DB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bMYJs-00013A-0O for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:20:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:20:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bMYJs-00013A-0O@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 <cory@lukasa.co.uk>) id 1bMYJl-0007lb-Jo for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:20:01 +0000
Received: from mail-wm0-f54.google.com ([74.125.82.54]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <cory@lukasa.co.uk>) id 1bMYJg-0002WZ-2C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 10:20:00 +0000
Received: by mail-wm0-f54.google.com with SMTP id o80so43135028wme.1 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lukasa-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=SM2qYvhx7nYuu0a1LxPbxaZ7uTxBot/dJXCHhEwzsHA=; b=JUn5wuY2d8ln10Uh/YYiqFk9dX3u0t+Fq9DkS0/T62s1emqiLDqyLe6dVJGFjVID0b g1dx9jKT6/pZ5bmNf00gP9reKlYH3XTvfvDPx8C+RkSAOT3x08Br+bauXw4QJOLXJUOl SvcJlrEid67qURicZ+yfWgwn8uf27vouiLyWv2CIfyLdyk3a2NpPAvnZdAPE8Q2FQ7sO qQsw5sN0UOCzWuQqACfbor0+VjoS5CWsWG2gv/yhvLHTmSUBpyVug+rHmyhHPBBJJA3r uHUVtExJyc4OW4G3p00T+BIwg1hwVSXNmyIzBgjuYAeN1zL/sHfUdzyv+ndQCxpZOadK mGZg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=SM2qYvhx7nYuu0a1LxPbxaZ7uTxBot/dJXCHhEwzsHA=; b=KETbJ2C4QNsLAQYydCVd6sXo8oOHRFLhEDQdgwiAgG1mJ/VUYb/QheTWTCfqZOHTXP DxepD8cCAF26v5swdmfjKMqWxC27nKM8ue35bYnWtZ9yyqTYuOJRZgN68cAc5f7BW6UT FogNBsdZjDAIytEf7UnM+gDMCE+CYbWhPOn800pAp7EDQO11IfoZ0wvtegUGxDtOMxtH YrTjx8J/yI011wpN8J7KNpu+mc9MCy6/9oyiVWyTFPxElBHajgWqs4iNhufslFBqmIqz LbuH+twl9IfOXWk2Invg7NuyhojLfhhPRRueQBvvqJ8bUujjKbGYE6g29JAibb5jTdR1 EXiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKy0YjKT6TxkUksmtA3RBG/6zKfbI3mWEVJhni42XwFRnXe8MPO6b8CQuG9zRHs1w==
X-Received: by 10.28.213.145 with SMTP id m139mr17662756wmg.81.1468232369160; Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:19:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (134.64.6.51.dyn.plus.net. [51.6.64.134]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q69sm21843104wmd.4.2016.07.11.03.19.27 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Jul 2016 03:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_61D3BBDB-5EA3-4D83-8968-8D77C9AB1030"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha256"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: Cory Benfield <cory@lukasa.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <1951.1468097144@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2016 11:19:25 +0100
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <E233C569-3EC4-4E36-8AFE-8859341A7099@lukasa.co.uk>
References: <74180.1468000149@critter.freebsd.dk> <F72E21BA-E891-4E1B-8535-385616431390@lukasa.co.uk> <1951.1468097144@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.54; envelope-from=cory@lukasa.co.uk; helo=mail-wm0-f54.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.817, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bMYJg-0002WZ-2C d389b8536b2c2410c6a1b4e09f2d1bcd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: JSON headers
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/E233C569-3EC4-4E36-8AFE-8859341A7099@lukasa.co.uk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31889
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 9 Jul 2016, at 21:45, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> 
> Remember, I'm talking about a new HTTP version here, with a different
> and closely shaved semantic layer.
> 
> In that version, I would argue that "anything weird" includes
> uncompressed data.

Fair enough. =) If we’re making supporting Content-Encoding: gzip mandatory, then that makes sense. However, in that world I’d want to say that we shouldn’t be implicitly appending identity, we should be implicitly appending gzip. If we’re saying that uncompressed data is weird, then you should have to ask for it explicitly, IMO.

> It was meant as a strawman to show how much improvement could be had,
> not as a final proposal :-)

Sure: that’s why I put it as a parenthetical note rather than stick on it. I just wanted to flag it now so that it’s dealt with at some point, because as I said earlier, I like the general shape of this.

Cory

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email