Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames

"Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Tue, 28 May 2013 08:34 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 9422921F93BA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 01:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 648WoLZmUswz for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 01:34:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC17021F92BB for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 28 May 2013 01:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UhFJT-0003zN-Ma for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 08:31:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:31:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UhFJT-0003zN-Ma@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1UhFJD-0003wo-Tp for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 08:31:07 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([210.55.214.35]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1UhFJA-0001sR-97 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 28 May 2013 08:31:07 +0000
Received: From SCREECH.qbik.local (unverified [192.168.0.4]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.1] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v8.0.0 (Build 4556)) with SMTP id <0019739024@smtp.qbik.com>; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:30:35 +1200
Received: From [192.168.0.23] (unverified [192.168.0.23]) by SMTP Server [192.168.0.4] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v8.0.0 (Build 4555)) with SMTP id <0000213355@SCREECH.qbik.local>; Tue, 28 May 2013 20:30:34 +1200
From: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
To: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>, "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2013 08:30:34 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8
In-Reply-To: <6CD70CBA-B2CF-4FF4-8E94-8CB839C39F56@mnot.net>
Message-Id: <em24ce5a11-26ff-49d1-a7c7-efb59515844f@bodybag>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/5.0.18025.0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=210.55.214.35; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.907, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.07, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UhFJA-0001sR-97 dfbabc88c572976afc5607df3f99b4f7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/em24ce5a11-26ff-49d1-a7c7-efb59515844f@bodybag>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18108
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>

FWIW I agree also wrt C-E, since we have legacy issues that would 
prevent this working properly, although as a replacement for T-E gzip it 
could be an option, and could be quite useful to promote this.

Adrien


------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>
To: "James M Snell" <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 28/05/2013 6:19:53 p.m.
Subject: Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames
>Speaking personally -
>
>I'm -1 on this. The semantics you talk about *are* a property of the 
>content, and you're embedding them in the transport.
>
>
>
>On 22/05/2013, at 2:21 AM, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/100
>>
>>  Currently the spec includes a requirement that all user-agents MUST
>>  support gzip.. specifically:
>>
>>   User-agents MUST support gzip compression.
>>   Regardless of the Accept-Encoding sent by
>>   the user-agent, the server may always send
>>   content encoded with gzip or deflate encoding.
>>
>>  If we're going to include this requirement, it makes more sense to do
>>  this at the framing layer rather than the HTTP semantic layer. We can
>>  do so easily by defining a GZIP flag on the DATA frame type. If set,
>>  the payload of the DATA frame is compressed.
>>
>>  Doing so largely eliminates the need for the
>>  accept-/transfer-/content-encoding mechanisms at the http semantic
>>  layer.
>>
>
>--
>Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
>
>
>
>