Re: #225: JFV Revisited
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 11 August 2016 07:58 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 82D8212D6B1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:58:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.168
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.168 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 xNuk2pLBYSVn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:58:34 -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 1ACD912D6AE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 00:58:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bXkow-00027M-AG for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:54:30 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:54:30 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bXkow-00027M-AG@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bXkor-00026O-2h for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:54:25 +0000
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net ([216.86.168.182]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1bXkoo-00017N-8z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 07:54:24 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.101] (unknown [124.189.98.244]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5889C22E25B; Thu, 11 Aug 2016 03:53:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <82681.1470901794@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 17:53:55 +1000
Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Ilya Grigorik <igrigorik@gmail.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3610C07E-70C1-4F86-A7D5-150049AC873E@mnot.net>
References: <64A60DE8-C2DD-4F61-89D7-EF5449E1F29E@mnot.net> <82681.1470901794@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.182; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-07.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=1.081, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_DB=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_IRR=-3, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1bXkoo-00017N-8z e2301e1d51c79b3379509ff3be3e504e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: #225: JFV Revisited
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/3610C07E-70C1-4F86-A7D5-150049AC873E@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/32254
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 11 Aug 2016, at 5:49 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote: > With that out of the way, I am still struggling to find out what > problem we are trying to solve here? > > Is it: > > A) Allow people to use (restricted) JSON in headers, because people > want to use JSON in headers (and will do it anyway). > > Or is it: > > B) Try to make headers more compute-efficient in preparation for > future 100+Gbit/s speeds. > > Or is it both ? I'ts neither. The only thing we have broad agreement to, AFAICT, is C) Specify conventions for people to use when defining headers, to avoid the most common footguns involved in that process (as well as generation, parsing, etc.). There have been very few people who are excited about (A); rather, I think people saw JSON as a (somewhat distasteful, but practical) means to an end. You're the strongest proponent for (B); my perception (which I'm happy to have corrected) is that most others are happy to wait for an alternative encoding (e.g., in a future version of HTTP) to get the efficiency gains. > I vote "No". > > Show of hands please... That's not how things work, you know... -- Mark Nottingham https://www.mnot.net/
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Ilya Grigorik
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Amos Jeffries
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Julian Reschke
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Amos Jeffries
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Martin Thomson
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Mark Nottingham
- Re: #225: JFV Revisited Poul-Henning Kamp
- #225: JFV Revisited Mark Nottingham