Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Thu, 24 January 2013 22:29 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 D46B211E80BA for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:29:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jgejYR1z6KyT for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:29:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA8A711E8099 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:29:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TyVIH-00087a-15 for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:29:13 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:29:13 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TyVIH-00087a-15@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1TyVIB-00084o-Hf for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:29:07 +0000
Received: from mail-wg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.82.50]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <hallam@gmail.com>) id 1TyVIA-0001zW-Ep for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 22:29:07 +0000
Received: by mail-wg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id es5so2252750wgb.29 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:28:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NzUVGe68aDIYfDKawspeDNacST+YACj+c8ARCjYZBao=; b=JRkcAdyQ1jPBuxjTFDE6vYV3Yxfunblv67MQIHa7/P3TY2PzeV+RsZ7AB+4dDNerZW Hyz71aa0CnI9Gb+O44l2o6SN8J8hVjuJaiSr2XpFpb4v75C3Ty/U3NCsRnyKUyrRgRhj mWGecunfHnZZmukdsT2W/Tqe/u11plySfKXs/Ywv6hzXroPcZq3cXMIWeRWzpDzyStCY 2T52MuGHe56q7hMPJOhtlqVEez8rvla68YQsgH4SAKSea3CHO6MTtgsCgroWA0iWeAkO 6LKDS50gS+/xo/CNuRh9m09NKUXpHk1xkzXgugce5Wzqan+HKWeN8TmjxioUo9avDYBt 8SXw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.39.143 with SMTP id p15mr5495182wik.14.1359066519885; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:28:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.136.66 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Jan 2013 14:28:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAK3OfOibmHdBnYnXzbXxag+2ATkFVxEyfzPuT+ywXRO09ZSBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMm+LwgTSw05QLUspAbAyRSWfd8j27fhwPiDSF_TaD8LevftBA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NEPLt=GkO575MfCi2aW4X+w40CzOVB05Z1+_rmLMXXSpw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwhJvSXgPzdqv2GscD-mfR4O7R_bba5JnAbdmP+uR+6SYA@mail.gmail.com> <510155E3.5020208@gmx.de> <CAMm+LwhCtd-m5uJnv+vcTTq9WcR3bEDQndV2cZqQE1ApNasCXA@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYh3uP228QKjMwtTT2QQb9ypijdHPY-CkZF36j6DuTH4+A@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwgqYmwomf_3XFmqkS9bLTCEAaTt=f9bFuqhTfFzjFk3AQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAA4WUYj3rDUQQ4crdyJrun=2-MwOGQ32qRfv5oJKrx=JciqOCA@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOhbOnCHCp7fKeG6QLKcdoYhAXcL1nkW6220+9xb-W5Gyw@mail.gmail.com> <4613980CFC78314ABFD7F85CC302772111990734@IL-EX10.ad.checkpoint.com> <CAK3OfOibmHdBnYnXzbXxag+2ATkFVxEyfzPuT+ywXRO09ZSBRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 17:28:39 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwj61=gTxgUgGo=P2XNUE2odB++7V_Zu48jhZp+aUWhf8Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d0443053024d7ec04d41055c6"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=74.125.82.50; envelope-from=hallam@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f50.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.105, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TyVIA-0001zW-Ep 5ef3c5b31336237b9b1917621ee94c5f
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP n+1?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAMm+Lwj61=gTxgUgGo=P2XNUE2odB++7V_Zu48jhZp+aUWhf8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16188
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>
+1 What I want is to have the simplicity of coding the parser that comes from being able to use a tokenized encoding. I do want to move away from text headers but moving from there to a compression library would be total nonsense for my applications. Excluding the URI, my applications have four lines of headers. The way I do compression is by not sending data I don't need. I want to have better framing and streams etc. So there is a lot in HTTP 2 that would attract me but header compression is a show stopper no matter how it is polished. On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 5:17 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> wrote: > > On Jan 24, 2013, at 9:01 PM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> > wrote: > >> IMO we need stateful compression to be absolutely optional to > >> implement. (If we choose to go with stateful compression in the first > >> place. I think we shouldn't.) > > > > I think we need to do a little more. I think we should define a "minimal > implementation" and have a way for client and server to signal this. A > minimal implementation would not be able to do any or some of these: > > - compression > > - server-initiated streams > > - stream priority > > - credentials > > - all but a small set of headers. > > - multiple concurrent streams > > As long as each can negotiate all-but-stateful-compression I'm happy. > I'd strongly object to having to forego the other things in order to > forego stateful compression. > > Also, while we are this, IMO we should first produce minimal encodings > of headers and values where that's meaningful, *then* add optional > stateful compression. > > > Maybe we need a CAPABILITIES control frame that will allow client or > server to communicate to the other what capabilities they don't have. > > Sure, but that's definitely something that had better have either > minimal encoding... or be statfully compressed. Ugh. Of course "no > state here" is a tiny -and therefore reasonable- amount of state. > > > A truly minimal client would be capable of one stream at a time - really > down to HTTP/1.0 functionality with the new syntax. > > But that's not what I'm after. I'm after the option to not implement > stateful compression. I'm not saying the other things have to be > optional to implement -- I might, after further reading, but for now I > don't. > > > Would this allow Phillip to use HTTP/2 for minimalist web services? > > See my comment about minimal encodings. Assuming we have that we'd > still have a sizeable improvement even without stateful compression, > and that would be a reason to want to use HTTP/2.0 without stateful > compression. > > Nico > -- > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- Should Web Services be served by a different HTTP… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Tim Bray
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … James M Snell
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Martin Thomson
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Greg Wilkins
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Grahame Grieve
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Mark Nottingham
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Yoav Nir
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Yoav Nir
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- RE: Should Web Services be served by a different … Robert Brewer
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Nico Williams
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … William Chan (陈智昌)
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Julian Reschke
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Hassnaa Moustafa
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Roberto Peon
- Re: Should Web Services be served by a different … Yoav Nir