From ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=ietf.org@listhub.w3.org Tue May 21 09:42:21 2024 Return-Path: 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 562B7C1D621F for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:42:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.751 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.751 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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=w3.org header.b="M50kqrAB"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=w3.org header.b="pocIvHqj" 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 dN_J7oQvBNph for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:42:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mab.w3.org (mab.w3.org [IPv6:2600:1f18:7d7a:2700:d091:4b25:8566:8113]) (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 103D3C14F614 for ; Tue, 21 May 2024 09:42:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=w3.org; s=s1; h=Subject:Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:From:In-reply-to:cc :To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=1wqSwjMdzFYbcmmNWBv3otirj3T1qzI3AsHzA7O9eOE=; b=M 50kqrAB8MqYQDGslk96/9P0CChpQCvs4xqZDj6Dg5j3LbwCtsvzpRzpI2J80lgVU8jxjeGC9gf9h5 szzapL6isdcDAMmkUuY/RNspCkJ8L0v8igmnkg3Ryqe6vsnlcwTzrtfy/wzW7BhnPkK6qxmoineaP aZK/zzIkj3DTE6I+yhpKYX3quxKxyynWAMrmpFgfI9b3wlQlF3uiiX0UWJtvzFehGkPtfMe1ev8YT XuMP9h0alCZwZlOMEi2HBz/k0nYI0X68xiWdKUYOLEYWu+yET2XD4dUViOFYG/uuNfzyga3zvEtbB eTrvBKYdl1S0kh0WoHX+nojin1ynfRHlw==; Received: from lists by mab.w3.org with local (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1s9SYa-00FJVK-1S for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:44 +0000 Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:44 +0000 Resent-Message-Id: Received: from ip-10-0-0-144.ec2.internal ([10.0.0.144] helo=pan.w3.org) by mab.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1s9SYY-00FJUG-2E for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.internal; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:42 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=w3.org; s=s1; h=Date:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:From:In-reply-to:Subject:cc :To:Message-Id:Reply-To; bh=1wqSwjMdzFYbcmmNWBv3otirj3T1qzI3AsHzA7O9eOE=; t=1716309702; x=1717173702; b=pocIvHqjR1h+k0WTHVF2JEntkkgCXKkaycdhgvl4hPnqVpA WUw5tKnEoB25kH7D3wY8JvuNzH6szewZ1UPYy6nNFhkdI9O2UreIMJ4/8Rc3JQJuzofiHWWJpT+DW Dr8RyOvETPiUmzSr3JYsRx+W47qmsNiFCwLwy19m3n5xmkp6hSI95r17PKEvvEQ7byAYqiMxvwIrS AB8VrFp/VTBvoth9yOTwmNtRd/HzS1/jKZe8BGWLLsbPWM8TzyaPOQHa0SDcpuKzqx7Tv06Sjigrv 5NTosXoz5JsZ6Ek20bBYdaaEabj0vy8GVRRt1ENGpTG6ENkCxeDWoBvv52eGHWpg==; Received-SPF: pass (pan.w3.org: domain of critter.freebsd.dk designates 130.225.244.222 as permitted sender) client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@critter.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk; Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by pan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1s9SYX-006Ow6-1z for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:42 +0000 Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DE1289293; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.18.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 44LGfaeZ006907 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:36 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: (from phk@localhost) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.18.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 44LGfY2U006906; Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:34 GMT (envelope-from phk) Message-Id: <202405211641.44LGfY2U006906@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Patrick Meenan cc: HTTP Working Group In-reply-to: From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-ID: <6904.1716309694.1@critter.freebsd.dk> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 16:41:34 +0000 X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, DMARC_MISSING=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1 X-W3C-Scan-Sig: pan.w3.org 1s9SYX-006Ow6-1z e3388747e615db121c44f8108aed1264 X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Subject: Re: Broader discussion - limit dictionary encoding to one compression algorithm? Archived-At: Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/51953 X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org Precedence: list List-Id: List-Help: List-Post: List-Unsubscribe: Patrick Meenan writes: > ** The case for a single content-encoding: > [=E2=80=A6] > ** The case for both Brotli and Zstandard: First, those are not really the two choices before us. Option one is: Pick one single algorithm Option two is: Add a negotiation mechanism and seed a new IANA registry w= ith those two algorithms As far as I can tell, there are no credible data which shows any performan= ce difference between the two, and no of reason to think that any future c= ompression algorithm will do significantly better. Therefore we can have no rational expectation of getting a better future, = if we add a negotiation mechanism, an IANA registry etc. But we do know there will be downsides. As you already mentioned, the most probable result of allowing both, is th= at everybody will end up having to implement both. In this post XZ-sabotage era that is called "Twice the attack surface for = no good reason" and that answers the question. As to how to pick one: If you think the limitations you mention are handicapping for one of the a= lgorithms, pick the other. Otherwise, do a quick but credible survey, and if one of the algorithms ha= ve more than twice as many /100% independent/ implementations than the oth= er, pick that one. All else being equal, more 100% independent implementa= tions means more people have looked at it carefully. But note that for in= stance porting an implementation from C++ to Java is not "100% independent= " If that still does not settle it, pipe the .txt version of the currently p= ublished I-D through them both, and pick the one which has most zero bits = in the output. Poul-Henning -- = Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe = Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence= .