Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Tue, 21 May 2013 21:34 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 4714421F86C0 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.600, 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 kexnkwpKvDTN for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5742521F90CD for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 14:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1UeuBT-0003JK-SQ for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:33:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 21:33:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1UeuBT-0003JK-SQ@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UeuBI-0003Ib-Q8 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:33:16 +0000
Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.17.21]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <derhoermi@gmx.net>) id 1UeuBH-0002pk-Hf for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Tue, 21 May 2013 21:33:16 +0000
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([10.1.76.27]) by mrigmx.server.lan (mrigmx002) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MNOMB-1UY2Yb0wPZ-006x0N for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Tue, 21 May 2013 23:32:48 +0200
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 May 2013 21:32:47 -0000
Received: from p5B230E8F.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO netb.Speedport_W_700V) [91.35.14.143] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 21 May 2013 23:32:47 +0200
X-Authenticated: #723575
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18h7L5kKnMhoCV97m+CZr6LNOEJLcQ/cOSWYh7Sar zFT/HZoYA33k3S
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 23:32:48 +0200
Message-ID: <8ipnp8hapu1949rd0mahtoasm60mm1i46v@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <CABP7Rbfb92Vxrmxj6fKdt+jpO_Qknq8FRjsu5GZW=17uoi4OFg@mail.gmail.com> <519BAB26.2010501@zinks.de> <4050.1369156663@critter.freebsd.dk> <fnlnp8t14lal0uk5suouc2uuk3uk4429dt@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <5267.1369169573@critter.freebsd.dk> <hnnnp8dgpoliq8ca07n89p6apn41mmu2ta@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <CABP7RbfynEZ--QMvyXmsGvqKDv2T9CbVCuBfVexNtmTa5_U_pQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABP7RbfynEZ--QMvyXmsGvqKDv2T9CbVCuBfVexNtmTa5_U_pQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.17.21; envelope-from=derhoermi@gmx.net; helo=mout.gmx.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.792, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.07, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1UeuBH-0002pk-Hf 404858084dbd8a86a7bc8e908cb453f4
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Design Issue: GZIP flag on DATA Frames
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/8ipnp8hapu1949rd0mahtoasm60mm1i46v@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/18073
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>

* James M Snell wrote:
>This does not preclude the use of alternative compression schemes. If
>someone chooses, it would be possible, for instance, to continue using
>accept-/content-/transfer-encoding at the http semantic layer and
>simply not set the GZIP flag on the DATA frame.

Having a "gzip flag" as, in effect, a shorthand for using those headers
would make it very clear how to deploy alternative compression schemes,
and would indeed address my concerns. I understood Poul-Henning Kamp to
be considering going one step further and offering no means to define
new compression schemes.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/