Re: Straw-man for our next charter
Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com> Sun, 29 July 2012 00:56 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 1CC4E21F8669 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.051
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.051 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.926, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_ADOBE2=2.455, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, 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 d8QKBa17djIP for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 394F321F8602 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1SvHm6-00034Y-Cf for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:54:26 +0000
Resent-Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:54:26 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1SvHm6-00034Y-Cf@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w3c@adambarth.com>) id 1SvHlq-00033j-Gl for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:54:10 +0000
Received: from mail-yw0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <w3c@adambarth.com>) id 1SvHlp-0000ln-19 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 00:54:10 +0000
Received: by yhl10 with SMTP id 10so4124633yhl.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.197.42 with SMTP id s30mr6396664yhn.64.1343523222715; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:53:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f171.google.com (mail-ob0-f171.google.com [209.85.214.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s1sm5748547anl.8.2012.07.28.17.53.40 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:53:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obqv19 with SMTP id v19so6846309obq.2 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.232.101 with SMTP id tn5mr10594285obc.49.1343523219474; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.226.5 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:53:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E2D86A0FF@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
References: <231852a1-9252-4173-91c2-4c7b0d07e03e@blur> <80f57360-6d21-43be-952c-87344a010013@blur> <50138C62.3020407@treenet.co.nz> <C68CB012D9182D408CED7B884F441D4D1E2D86A0FF@nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com>
From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2012 17:53:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJE5ia_dy17wEAYCzCVViT8MrUMRis8o6iEB3QJSrDX0jxpFAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com>
Cc: "ietf-http-wg@w3.org" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044517433e874804c5ed60d1"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.213.43; envelope-from=w3c@adambarth.com; helo=mail-yw0-f43.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, FRT_ADOBE2=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1SvHlp-0000ln-19 18c2ae9efd5a935fb341877fa1ed0945
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Straw-man for our next charter
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJE5ia_dy17wEAYCzCVViT8MrUMRis8o6iEB3QJSrDX0jxpFAg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/14796
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>
>From the charter: ---8<--- Changes to the existing semantics of HTTP are out of scope in order to preserve the meaning of messages that might cross a 1.1 --> 2.0 --> 1.1 request chain. --->8--- http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/ Changing how user agents interpret the Content-Type header would change the semantics of HTTP and are therefore out of scope for HTTP/2.0 according to our current charter. Adam On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Larry Masinter <masinter@adobe.com> wrote: > The sniffing I was in particular hoping to stop is content-type sniffing. > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-websec-mime-sniff-03 > > " Many web servers supply incorrect Content-Type header fields with > their HTTP responses. In order to be compatible with these servers, > user agents consider the content of HTTP responses as well as the > Content-Type header fields when determining the effective media type > of the response." > > If browsers suddenly stopped sniffing HTTP/1.1 content, it would break > existing web sites, so of course the browser makers are reluctant to do > that. > > However, if it was a requirement to supply a _correct_ content-type header > for HTTP/2.0, and no HTTP/2.0 client sniffed, then sites upgrading to > HTTP/2.0 would fix their content-type sending (because when they were > deploying HTTP/2.0 they would have to in order to get any browser to work > with them.) > > Basically, sniffing is a wart which backward compatibility keeps in place. > Introducing a new version is a unique opportunity to remove it. > > The improved performance would come from having to look at the content to > determine before routing to the appropriate processor. > > Larry > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Amos Jeffries [mailto:squid3@treenet.co.nz] > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 11:53 PM > To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: Straw-man for our next charter > > On 28/07/2012 6:39 p.m., Larry Masinter wrote: > > re changes to semantics: consider the possibility of eliminating > > "sniffing" in HTTP/2.0. If sniffing is justified for compatibility > > with deployed servers, could we eliminate sniffing for 2.0 sites? > > > > It would improve reliability, security, and even performance. Yes, > > popular browsers would have to agree not to sniff sites running 2.0, > > so that sites wanting 2:0 benefits will fix their configuration. > > > > Likely there are many other warts that can be removed if there is a > > version upgrade. > > Which of the several meanings of "sniffing" are you talking about exactly? > > AYJ > > >
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Poul-Henning Kamp
- Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Julian Reschke
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Amos Jeffries
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter James M Snell
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Eric J. Bowman
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Ludin, Stephen
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Amos Jeffries
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- RE: Straw-man for our next charter Rob Trace
- RE: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Amos Jeffries
- RE: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Adam Barth
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Yutaka OIWA
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Ian Fette (イアンフェッティ)
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mark Nottingham
- Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter Adrien W. de Croy
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Amos Jeffries
- Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter Adam Barth
- RE: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter Poul-Henning Kamp
- Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter Adam Barth
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Martin J. Dürst
- Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter Larry Masinter
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Jonathan Ballard
- Re: Re[2]: Straw-man for our next charter Adam Barth
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter James M Snell
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Jonathan Ballard
- Re: Straw-man for our next charter Mike Belshe
- Connection limits, was: Straw-man for our next ch… Julian Reschke
- Re: Connection limits, was: Straw-man for our nex… Carsten Bormann
- Re: Connection limits, was: Straw-man for our nex… Mike Belshe
- Re: Connection limits, was: Straw-man for our nex… Julian Reschke