IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good

Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com> Mon, 21 January 2013 15:12 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 553CB21F8835 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:12:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.076
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_51=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 MnAuCNdP7Abn for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB69121F8834 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:12:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1TxJ1z-0002pk-EH for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:11:27 +0000
Resent-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:11:27 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1TxJ1z-0002pk-EH@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1TxJ1u-0002ok-Nv for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:11:22 +0000
Received: from mail-oa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.219.41]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <patrick.ducksong@gmail.com>) id 1TxJ1t-0003ah-OD for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:11:22 +0000
Received: by mail-oa0-f41.google.com with SMTP id k14so6230733oag.0 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:10:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=CPSpkFKGPCaHjtBCSMNQvQdaAs7nDv0NMih4wNiUkD0=; b=B4y5Dsy1D1xFUvpp73PHAsceI0My6VujjdW53s/1Oe19SXO5aZpBssP8DxrMPbu+Ah 7QKXOnyX56pNFhd3fc0A7ZOVsppXwPQbuuh6B9mKhSN8bkv7iUOgmALMbNQDor/vnYno B+xcfQihOvIhJ2pqVU5eBwZC8uPxj1TfCv7XWORSLW8ynRkPzSdmCnWMjbt4DkWKFo+K sdDvUu1E6EdiuMxYXewRrhjyy0w824c1QpPFFP5flEQvTAnKb29D+IOdC+118VvtRlMo 1O6+vLDWwdKAvn/KXhLMKog0wDqO9d1MNlq4tyLp5RP6PoNmfEIcjqP/an8kofXmqIaP x90g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.32.147 with SMTP id j19mr14333410oei.68.1358781055315; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:10:55 -0800 (PST)
Sender: patrick.ducksong@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.132.165 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Jan 2013 07:10:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAA4WUYjzG+1CzEo0WJUjoeqZs5bfud3P+V30_+p8pe_MD6bjPQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <em670f0a0f-3c5a-4f99-88cb-03bd4234ce63@bombed> <7F8E363D-6D6E-4FDD-B8EA-24A31383B1A3@mnot.net> <CAA4WUYiPRpm0OWesf5wTGLX--HWtDmgjFr+wSEEVr-beH8J=qw@mail.gmail.com> <3EFE45C2-8147-432C-8D15-7E8C5AEC39DC@mnot.net> <CAA4WUYhxHbFeaw-M=DUdKKKafhdDE4U5==N2QGY2hd_ptxSHiA@mail.gmail.com> <B2A83604-183E-49BF-A962-238AF5F19DA9@mnot.net> <CAA4WUYjzG+1CzEo0WJUjoeqZs5bfud3P+V30_+p8pe_MD6bjPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 10:10:55 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2GQH96EAHN9V-AKSuXSb5v8VC_I
Message-ID: <CAOdDvNr1p_8nxC5_dr3zEOTpPH1C=O6f+=G1fP5TQOnFHYLj+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
To: "William Chan (陈智昌)" <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "Adrien W. de Croy" <adrien@qbik.com>, Pablo <paa.listas@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8fb1f506212e1104d3cdde4b"
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=209.85.219.41; envelope-from=patrick.ducksong@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f41.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-1.760, BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1TxJ1t-0003ah-OD 5ae415eb8d020b423631872c1bad4921
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: The use of binary data in any part of HTTP 2.0 is not good
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CAOdDvNr1p_8nxC5_dr3zEOTpPH1C=O6f+=G1fP5TQOnFHYLj+A@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/16083
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 Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, William Chan (陈智昌)
<willchan@chromium.org>wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> wrote:y
> limited, power.
>
> Fair enough. I mostly wanted to chime in to provide the "other"
> opinion here, since you stated that the previous reaction had been
> pretty positive. Please take my comments as a contrary opinion for
> people to consider before we draw any conclusions here.
>
> >
>

I agree with Will here - if we end up with a stateful mechanism (which we
seem to be headed towards; reasonably so) then let's have just that
mechanism.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email