Re: Deployment of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice (Client-Initiated Content-Encoding)

squid3@treenet.co.nz Wed, 02 November 2022 04:22 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 8DFF7C15256E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:22:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.962
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.962 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q-NM3llyORqt for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68DAAC14CE25 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 1 Nov 2022 21:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1oq5Df-008OhP-FP for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 04:19:15 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 04:19:15 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1oq5Df-008OhP-FP@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from mimas.w3.org ([128.30.52.79]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1oq5De-008OgS-8Q for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 04:19:14 +0000
Received: from [101.98.39.247] (helo=treenet.co.nz) by mimas.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <squid3@treenet.co.nz>) id 1oq5Dc-005nOo-OE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2022 04:19:13 +0000
Received: from webmail.treenet.co.nz (rio [127.0.0.1]) by treenet.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7345E300047 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Wed, 2 Nov 2022 17:18:58 +1300 (NZDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2022 17:18:58 +1300
From: squid3@treenet.co.nz
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <CAD3-0rN1BroLfdi5Zn8MYHMEM3rGwnAu1fnN4e7vdsYqgwPTjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD3-0rNTsm7QmXX8HohjjBpW_MZ8wy+2-EAuYS9YKXqy1eOhNA@mail.gmail.com> <f67c02db-4d1b-a08c-e766-fead1c3c3a6f@gmx.de> <CAD3-0rNeUO2DF9Uhnj9fRCDZ2S94tiG=Mzp7WLAV14uQpp-ByQ@mail.gmail.com> <b6a8aaf8-d975-bdbb-cba5-91833111db1b@gmx.de> <CAD3-0rN1BroLfdi5Zn8MYHMEM3rGwnAu1fnN4e7vdsYqgwPTjA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <da6889d3c610a155de6819e7e83b0f47@treenet.co.nz>
X-Sender: squid3@treenet.co.nz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=101.98.39.247; envelope-from=squid3@treenet.co.nz; helo=treenet.co.nz
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: mimas.w3.org 1oq5Dc-005nOo-OE eda076e71a46add6c728bd9d2400f718
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Deployment of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice (Client-Initiated Content-Encoding)
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/da6889d3c610a155de6819e7e83b0f47@treenet.co.nz>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40520
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On 2022-11-02 14:19, Wenbo Zhu wrote:
> No. The server has rules that decide what MIMI types are compressible. 
> It
> is possible for a client to apply C-E against an incompressible mime 
> type
> (as decided by the server).

This is backwards. CICE is for clients to make compression decisions, 
not the server. All the server can do is inform the client which 
decoders it has implemented.


> With 415, the server may have to honor the client's decision to 
> indicate AE
> for the request, when the server will not compress the response of the 
> same
> CT.

That certainly sounds like a server bug to me. The server advertised 
that it can receive gzip.
It should either employ the gzip decoder it told the client it has 
access to, or only advertise identity encoding in the first 415.

CICE has nothing to do with response content, nor what the server would 
do when sending any C-T.


AYJ

> 
> Thanks,
> Wenbo
> 
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 2:22 AM Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
> wrote:
> 
>> Am 03.10.2022 um 20:20 schrieb Wenbo Zhu:
>> > We ran into a corner case in responding 415 to a br-compressed request
>> > on a server which hasn't enabled br support.
>> >
>> > When the client chooses to compress (br) an incompressible mime type (as
>> > the server decides), the server will advise "A-E: gzip" instead of "A-E:
>> > identity".
>> 
>> But that's a server bug, no?
>> 
>> Best regards, Julian
>> 
>>