Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?

Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il> Sun, 03 February 2013 19:49 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 1404D21F8558 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:49:53 -0800 (PST)
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 ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bCypC5VRyPm0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:49:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 058F321F8459 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:49:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1U25Xc-0003Ms-Bj for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:47:52 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:47:52 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1U25Xc-0003Ms-Bj@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>) id 1U25XV-0003M8-Tr for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:47:45 +0000
Received: from mail.neto.net.il ([213.151.32.73]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>) id 1U25XU-0000GJ-Sy for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:47:45 +0000
Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.0.78]) by mail.neto.net.il (Postfix) with ESMTP id F25D8BDC88 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:47:21 +0200 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at neto.net.il
Received: from mail.neto.net.il ([192.168.0.29]) by localhost (antispam.neto.net.il [192.168.0.78]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id lRxEkAL8UHFM for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:47:18 +0200 (IST)
Received: from mail.ngtech.co.il (bzq-79-176-218-179.red.bezeqint.net [79.176.218.179]) (Authenticated sender: hg3@neto.net.il) by mail.neto.net.il (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 8DEF9CC12D for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:47:18 +0200 (IST)
Received: from localhost (www1 [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ngtech.co.il (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B170148CDB0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:47:25 +0200 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ngtech.co.il
Received: from mail.ngtech.co.il ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.ngtech.co.il [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id EJDeSjWupesK for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:47:22 +0200 (IST)
Received: from [192.168.10.100] (bzq-79-176-218-179.red.bezeqint.net [79.176.218.179]) by mail.ngtech.co.il (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7E2C4148CD7E for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:47:22 +0200 (IST)
Message-ID: <510EBEB4.1010302@ngtech.co.il>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:47:00 +0200
From: Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@ngtech.co.il>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
References: <51096B55.7060207@ngtech.co.il> <emc25ddeb2-2ab7-421a-ae78-510ead7301aa@bombed> <CA+9kkMBDT9129r=2Mquzo6B1u13WuFNKemW6hoyDOF82RWXg8A@mail.gmail.com> <EB84D829-9509-4EE0-BE4D-06070E305DB9@gbiv.com> <CA+9kkMC1X0mnSVEau-FNXkeYasVduJ+OPmoiDdLEtYMhYykxqQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABP7RbcEjjtD3eaeZuQ7+KswXHd3FJMKiYMJR2sK51YD3J2epA@mail.gmail.com> <510B8F46.20809@treenet.co.nz> <CABP7RbfURytrFc9j5-J0cx8de=TkxCqLOiA+LnER6M4Dii=KsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK3OfOgYW8X9eqmW5n2ytaszD7S+aYKCOJ_DKH5Ny13-wBuiXA@mail.gmail.com> <510BFAB7.6010601@zinks.de> <9787E4D1-662D-4BC8-858C-48FC6D70DEE2@qbik.com> <510C258A.5070302@gmx.de> <1F7487DF-D460-444D-A7C2-2FF4AE620EE3@qbik.com> <CABP7Rbet285101rRFiMGXQHHn0N8CeQaWemGXfgr1Xuz=o945Q@mail.gmail.com> <EC2E7168-0346-47FF-993E-BE998CC24ADF@qbik.com> <CAP+FsNcLeKAzxPEG-Y7VwPT8pt6kWXmmoJDi0ZNrEDA53bqUhw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP+FsNcLeKAzxPEG-Y7VwPT8pt6kWXmmoJDi0ZNrEDA53bqUhw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: none client-ip=213.151.32.73; envelope-from=eliezer@ngtech.co.il; helo=mail.neto.net.il
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.450
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1U25XU-0000GJ-Sy 57f1cb430dd4a3c2c14e9d47c2ba417e
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Do we kill the "Host:" header in HTTP/2 ?
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/510EBEB4.1010302@ngtech.co.il>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16344
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 2/2/2013 1:53 PM, Roberto Peon wrote:
> I'll point out that the delta compressor already deals these encoding
> problems by using a static dictionary (i.e. O(1) state for program
> execution) for key-values, some of which are certainly ":method", "GET",
> etc...
>
> Thus the various methods get assigned numeric IDs, and if one isn't
> familiar, then you can either represent it as text every time, or if the
> receiver allows for state storage, it can allocate a new numeric ID
> after seeing the method once.
>
> The only thing that isn't "solved" right now is putting the scheme,
> host, and path components in whatever combination, at the beginning,
> mainly because it makes the state machine for a(ny) compressor
> significantly more annoying to manage as it can require that entries in
> the compression context get expired.
>
> If we're worried about the bit-width of these things, we can make some
> of these "special" and only use a byte to index 'em (thusfar the static
> dictionary has ~64 items, so this should be quite safe). Personally, I
> hate that idea, and think that 2-bytes to encode this is perfectly fine. :)
>
> -=R
>

I was just wondering about what is the proposal for now?

-- 
Eliezer Croitoru
http://www1.ngtech.co.il