IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: A structured format for dates?

Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Wed, 24 August 2022 08:40 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 BFBF6C1522D9 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.662
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fJufc93HlDYp for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lyra.w3.org (lyra.w3.org [128.30.52.18]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 92F5BC14F732 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 01:40:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by lyra.w3.org with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1oQlu5-00Aqai-9O for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:25 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:25 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1oQlu5-00Aqai-9O@lyra.w3.org>
Received: from titan.w3.org ([128.30.52.76]) by lyra.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>) id 1oQlu3-00AqZq-Vn for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:23 +0000
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk ([130.225.244.222]) by titan.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>) id 1oQlu2-003vLx-9d for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:23 +0000
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.55.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39AC8892AA; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPS id 27O8c72j021750 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:07 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: (from phk@localhost) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.16.1/8.16.1/Submit) id 27O8c6eE021749; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:06 GMT (envelope-from phk)
Message-Id: <202208240838.27O8c6eE021749@critter.freebsd.dk>
To: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
cc: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Roberto Polli <robipolli@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
In-reply-to: <685890F9-9F68-41EF-AC8C-86ACAD074A38@mnot.net>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <202208231056.27NAuWFY015133@critter.freebsd.dk> <7B9BFDFF-337E-4CB8-8550-3D38EFD52160@apple.com> <685890F9-9F68-41EF-AC8C-86ACAD074A38@mnot.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <21747.1661330286.1@critter.freebsd.dk>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:38:06 +0000
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=130.225.244.222; envelope-from=phk@critter.freebsd.dk; helo=phk.freebsd.dk
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, W3C_AA=-1, W3C_IRA=-1, W3C_WL=-1
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: titan.w3.org 1oQlu2-003vLx-9d e1220b58f173d4d2fea26df8204a2bd2
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: A structured format for dates?
Archived-At: <https://www.w3.org/mid/202208240838.27O8c6eE021749@critter.freebsd.dk>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/40349
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: <https://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>

--------
Mark Nottingham writes:

> IMO the only reason we'd choose an integer textual representation is if we 
> didn't believe that [binary structured fields are going to happen].

I disagree.

First, we are never going to get 100% penetration for a binary serialization,
and it will take about five years for any significant uptake of it.

Second, the efficiency arguments are invariant of the existence of
binary serializations, because most of the actual HTTP header
processing HTTP headers will not operate on the binary serialization
in the first place.

Third, there are many efficiency arguments for integer textural representation,
even without considering binary serializations:

* takes up less space in files and on the wire
* compresses better.
* is faster and uses less instructions/energy to produce and parse
* is easier and less error-prone to produce and parse

So I really dont see binary structured fields as particularly relevant for this
decision, if anything, they just add one more efficiency argument:

* is faster/uses less instructions/energy and easier to (de)serialize as binary.

Poul-Henning

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email