RE: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)
Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com> Wed, 13 August 2014 16:53 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 (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16041A0331 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.668, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 nqBq6M01LUn3 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:53:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66B671A0328 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XHbkl-0006FW-Oa for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:50:23 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:50:23 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XHbkl-0006FW-Oa@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XHbkK-0004s5-Vk for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:49:57 +0000
Received: from mail-by2lp0237.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([207.46.163.237] helo=na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>) id 1XHbkG-0003Sb-23 for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:49:56 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.24) by BL2PR03MB130.namprd03.prod.outlook.com (10.255.230.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1005.10; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:49:22 +0000
Received: from BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.215]) by BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.9.215]) with mapi id 15.00.1005.008; Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:49:22 +0000
From: Mike Bishop <Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Thread-Topic: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)
Thread-Index: AQHPts0QzdCMFENvfUesRNuF2AF60JvOvo0w
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:49:22 +0000
Message-ID: <a5395d02913c41b78eb7340aeb427fac@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <http2/http2-spec/issues/587@github.com> <http2/http2-spec/issues/587/52017524@github.com> <CAH_y2NGC1gJ_ks-FPQNJw9ZWvNYZV_ZQuYN+yqahLOJEXyXV9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NGC1gJ_ks-FPQNJw9ZWvNYZV_ZQuYN+yqahLOJEXyXV9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [70.199.140.10]
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;UriScan:;
x-forefront-prvs: 0302D4F392
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454003)(189002)(24454002)(199003)(81542001)(74662001)(15395725005)(21056001)(107046002)(95666004)(86612001)(83322001)(19609705001)(86362001)(107886001)(31966008)(76576001)(15202345003)(19300405004)(16601075003)(83072002)(15975445006)(66066001)(81342001)(85306004)(106356001)(87936001)(76176999)(19617315012)(99286002)(16236675004)(19625215002)(20776003)(54356999)(64706001)(101416001)(99396002)(33646002)(50986999)(77096002)(92566001)(80022001)(77982001)(106116001)(105586002)(2656002)(74502001)(4396001)(79102001)(85852003)(74316001)(76482001)(19580395003)(108616004)(19580405001)(46102001)(24736002); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2PR03MB130; H:BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; MLV:sfv; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_a5395d02913c41b78eb7340aeb427facBL2PR03MB132namprd03pro_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=207.46.163.237; envelope-from=Michael.Bishop@microsoft.com; helo=na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.672, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XHbkG-0003Sb-23 66f44960cd5b14b1d07c31d4801002fd
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587)
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/a5395d02913c41b78eb7340aeb427fac@BL2PR03MB132.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/26596
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>
What’s surprising about If-Unmodified-Since? Not for a GET, sure, but perfectly reasonable for a PUT. From: Greg Wilkins [mailto:gregw@intalio.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 12:59 AM To: HTTP Working Group Subject: Re: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587) Move this here as don't want to discuss on issue comments: On 13 August 2014 17:23, Mark Nottingham <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote: application/x-javascript is non-standard; I don't think we want to encourage that. text/html; charset=utf8 might be more the go. images, css and javascript were all more frequent than html. But if none of them have good standard content-types, then I'm OK to favour text/html; charset=utf8 A few more: * If we're going to include expect, why not 100-continue? * If we're going to include access-control-allow-origin, it'd be nice to confirm with the W3C that this is going to stick (they've had a few tries at CORS), and that there's not anything else on the horizon. * If-Unmodified-Since? Really? * Max-Forwards? Considering we're no longer hop-by-hop, that's a good trick. * Refresh is non-standard, and badly interoperable. Shouldn't be encouraged. * Uhhhhh, we don't allow Transfer-Encoding; why is it in the static table? All good points..... I'm starting to feel that these all combined warrant a breaking change in themselves... but no hurry to do so. cheers -- Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com<mailto:gregw@intalio.com>> http://eclipse.org/jetty HTTP, SPDY, Websocket server and client that scales http://www.webtide.com advice and support for jetty and cometd.
- Re: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587) Greg Wilkins
- RE: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587) Mike Bishop
- Re: [http2-spec] Hpack optimization (#587) Mark Nottingham