Re: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP/2.0 and HTTP Authentication

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> Fri, 27 April 2012 07:39 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 72E1721F86B7 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.483
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.483 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.116, 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 QnaG92e1Dfku for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE65321F86B4 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 00:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SNflM-00043X-Ld for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:38:44 +0000
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1SNflE-0003zM-Cg for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:38:36 +0000
Received: from 1wt.eu ([62.212.114.60]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w@1wt.eu>) id 1SNfl6-0005kN-Gf for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:38:34 +0000
Received: (from willy@localhost) by mail.home.local (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q3R7c2dY019842; Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:38:02 +0200
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 09:38:02 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120427073802.GF17285@1wt.eu>
References: <14A09626-8397-4656-A042-FEFDDD017C9F@mnot.net> <CABP7RbexZk_3RjJ2ACVr6mOYzoS_O-6dqA0BWb7Eg-qqsLsRXQ@mail.gmail.com> <CF256E22-C7B3-4CA7-88F4-E0E14863BE38@mnot.net> <CABP7RbejLcSg-BySah3LJToqzAZzsaUu7YC10a+u1HA9OTq+iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbejLcSg-BySah3LJToqzAZzsaUu7YC10a+u1HA9OTq+iQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=62.212.114.60; envelope-from=w@1wt.eu; helo=1wt.eu
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1SNfl6-0005kN-Gf b8c28a54aa62f32d0f97ca2d468c0719
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reminder: Call for Proposals - HTTP/2.0 and HTTP Authentication
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/20120427073802.GF17285@1wt.eu>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/13484
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>
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SNflM-00043X-Ld@frink.w3.org>
Resent-Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:38:44 +0000

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:32:07AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> >>  For that matter, can we allow extended characters in all the headers
> >> and use UTF-8 as the default encoding.
> >
> > It's not clear that we're going to be able to do that, because it requires knowledge of the headers to translate between the different encodings. The benefit would be relatively small for a LOT of work.
> >
> 
> It may be because it's after midnight and I really should be getting
> some sleep, but i don't quite follow what you're saying about
> requiring knowledge of the headers to translate between the different
> encodings.

Some header fields might very well contain some data that are not to
be considered as text and will not be utf-8 encoded. So it might be a
real pain to know what must be transcoded and what must not be. This
is the reason why in websocket we have implemented a frame type from
the beginning (binary/text).

Regards,
Willy