Re: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Thu, 14 August 2014 00:50 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E47E1A0639 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.57
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.57 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 uZLzs7lb0vg2 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05FC31A0651 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 17:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XHjBl-0001Gh-C5 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:46:45 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:46:45 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XHjBl-0001Gh-C5@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XHjBI-0001A4-Qf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:46:16 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XHjBC-0007jL-R7 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 14 Aug 2014 00:46:16 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.55] (unknown [118.209.12.212]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3810850A84; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 20:45:45 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <a5395d02913c41b78eb7340aeb427fac@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 10:45:42 +1000
Cc: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <95368B7D-1030-4B97-9196-06D64E809ACF@mnot.net>
References: <http2/http2-spec/issues/587@github.com> <http2/http2-spec/issues/587/52017524@github.com> <CAH_y2NGC1gJ_ks-FPQNJw9ZWvNYZV_ZQuYN+yqahLOJEXyXV9Q@mail.gmail.com> <a5395d02913c41b78eb7340aeb427fac@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
To: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.074, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XHjBC-0007jL-R7 f9791c88ae81037c140fe3afb7148b28
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/95368B7D-1030-4B97-9196-06D64E809ACF@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26598
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 14 Aug 2014, at 2:49 am, Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> wrote:

> What’s surprising about If-Unmodified-Since?  Not for a GET, sure, but perfectly reasonable for a PUT.

If-Match is far more useful for a PUT, since it can be explicitly strong. It's also just not that comment AFAIK.

Again, not a big deal. 


>  
> From: Greg Wilkins [mailto:gregw@intalio.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:59 AM
> To: HTTP Working Group
> Subject: Re: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)
>  
>  
> Move this here as don't want to discuss on issue comments:
>  
> On 13 August 2014 17:23, Mark Nottingham <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> application/x-javascript is non-standard; I don't think we want to encourage that.
> 
> text/html; charset=utf8 might be more the go.
> 
>  
> images, css and javascript were all more frequent than html.   But if none of them have good standard content-types, then I'm OK to favour text/html; charset=utf8
>  
> A few more:
> 
> 	• If we're going to include expect, why not 100-continue?
> 	• If we're going to include access-control-allow-origin, it'd be nice to confirm with the W3C that this is going to stick (they've had a few tries at CORS), and that there's not anything else on the horizon.
> 	• If-Unmodified-Since? Really?
> 	• Max-Forwards? Considering we're no longer hop-by-hop, that's a good trick.
> 	• Refresh is non-standard, and badly interoperable. Shouldn't be encouraged.
> 	• Uhhhhh, we don't allow Transfer-Encoding; why is it in the static table?
>  
> All good points..... I'm starting to feel that these all combined warrant a breaking change in themselves... but no hurry to do so.
> 
> cheers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> 
> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales
> http://www.webtide.com  advice and support for jetty and cometd.

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/