Re: [hybi] deflate-stream and masking

Greg Wilkins <> Thu, 21 July 2011 09:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C93A721F889F for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.834
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.834 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.143, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nVcmIhnjOyLb for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D54421F881C for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:31:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vws12 with SMTP id 12so945230vws.31 for <>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id bz4mr26877vdc.174.1311240709321; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 02:31:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <00b801cc470a$d2d5e520$7881af60$> <> <1311190993.1862.135.camel@ds9> <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:31:49 +1000
Message-ID: <>
From: Greg Wilkins <>
To: Hybi <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [hybi] deflate-stream and masking
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 09:31:50 -0000


I do recall the first thread, but it is all about framed based
compression.  This was a well discussed thread with 30 posts from 10
authors.   There was good support for frame based compression, a bit
of dissent about reserved bit and just a hint of support for stream
based compression.

The second thread, I missed at the time and missed again while
searching. It only has 5 responses from 3 authors.  Reading it now, I
see that opinion was split in these responses with yourself still
advocating frame compression.  Hardly wide consensus that could be
classified as "once we do agree on something".

But maybe I'm being a bit precious and this is probably not the best
example of the anti-pattern that I'm whining about.  So I'll stop
whipping this particular dead horse.

Regardless, there was significant opposition to stream compression
then (pre masking) and there is more now.    I think we are setting a
very low  quality/consensus standard for this extension.   But having
said all this before, I'll now go easy on this not-so-healthy horse.