IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: TE request header deployment

"Adrien de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com> Fri, 01 July 2016 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request+bounce-httpbisa-archive-bis2juki=lists.ie@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 A090712B025 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:21:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RNs_cek5aA2F for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:21:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09DAE12B020 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Jul 2016 14:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1bJ5oC-0006WG-KW for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:17:08 +0000
Resent-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:17:08 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1bJ5oC-0006WG-KW@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1bJ5o9-0006VJ-LM for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:17:05 +0000
Received: from smtp.qbik.com ([122.56.26.1]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <adrien@qbik.com>) id 1bJ5o5-0006Rv-NE for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:17:04 +0000
Received: From [192.168.1.146] (unverified [192.168.1.146]) by SMTP Server [192.168.1.3] (WinGate SMTP Receiver v9.0.0 (Build 5834)) with SMTP id <0000767078@smtp.qbik.com>; Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:16:31 +1200
From: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
To: Roland Zink <roland@zinks.de>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2016 21:16:31 +0000
Message-Id: <em3dc07ed5-0128-42b9-9333-7571aa004a6b@bodybag>
In-Reply-To: <e9377f9e-7065-0e2a-ac8c-15a6f887f406@zinks.de>
Reply-To: Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>
User-Agent: eM_Client/6.0.24928.0
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=122.56.26.1; envelope-from=adrien@qbik.com; helo=smtp.qbik.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-0.085, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1bJ5o5-0006Rv-NE e23a398dfcc4019a586bf4f477e95134
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: TE request header deployment
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/em3dc07ed5-0128-42b9-9333-7571aa004a6b@bodybag>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/31821
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>

OK, thanks everyone, as I suspected putting support in for reverse proxy 
on the client-side connection would only affect a very small number of 
clients (e.g. those behind squid with that option enabled), so not worth 
it.

Regards

Adrien


------ Original Message ------
From: "Roland Zink" <roland@zinks.de>
To: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 1/07/2016 11:43:18 p.m.
Subject: Re: TE request header deployment

>When data is dynamically compressed for transport then content-encoding 
>is often broken and using transfer encoding would be better. As far as 
>I know the support was removed from browsers and web servers because if 
>both are supported then content was often compressed twice.
>
>For downstream the negotiation shouldn't be a problem but upstream I 
>think this isn't defined. You probably need something like CICE 
>(https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7694) for transfer encoding or you just 
>know (for example by configuration) that you can use it.
>
>Regards,
>
>Roland
>
>
>
>Am 01.07.2016 um 13:09 schrieb Amos Jeffries:
>>On 1/07/2016 2:05 p.m., Adrien de Croy wrote:
>>>Hi all
>>>
>>>I've been trying unsuccessfully to find a browser that sets TE header 
>>>in
>>>requests.
>>>
>>>Tested IE, Chrome, Firefox and Opera current versions.
>>>
>>>I note that the wikipedia page for it comments that due to some
>>>unreliable servers (e.g. breaking on TE headers) that browsers now
>>>tended to not use it.
>>>
>>>Is it a completely defunct header then?  We were thinking it could be 
>>>a
>>>good option for reverse proxy bandwidth reduction (apart from HTTP/2 
>>>of
>>>course).  Pointless if nobody is using it, and even worse if the 
>>>proxy
>>>would have to retry if the server broke on it (e.g. if a proxy 
>>>inserted
>>>it for upstream).
>>>
>>>Regards
>>>
>>>Adrien de Croy
>>FWIW The Squid eCAP plugin to enable gzip encoding uses it on server
>>connections.
>>
>>Other than that it seems to be a big empty space.
>>
>>For HTTP/2 there is
>><https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kerwin-http2-encoded-data-08> which
>>unfortunately does not show up on the WG tracker page of related 
>>drafts
>>for some reason.
>>
>>Amos
>>
>>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email