Subject: Deployment of draft-ietf-httpbis-cice (Client-Initiated Content-Encoding)

From: Wenbo Zhu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2017 14:33:41 -0700

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cice>

I am planning to start to advise A-E with 415 responses.

Questions to the working group:

1. Does CICE alone address the concern to support/enable request
compression in U-A?
2. I suspect the success rate of non-negotiated use of (gzip) request
compression will be very high over Internet, esp. if the server end-point
is managed by the content author. Any suggestion otherwise?
3. Any known deployment of gzip/brotli compression in browsers?

Thanks.

- Wenbo

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]
<[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20Working%20Group%20Last%20Call%20for%20draft-ietf-httpbis-cice%20(Client-Initiated%20Content-Encoding)&In-Reply-To=%3CD56ECDCB-70C6-4786-9C89-2862C1FFDED4%40mnot.net%3E&References=%3CD56ECDCB-70C6-4786-9C89-2862C1FFDED4%40mnot.net%3E>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:43:21 +1000
Message-Id: <[email-masked]>
To: HTTP Working Group <[email-masked]
<[email-masked]?Subject=Re%3A%20Working%20Group%20Last%20Call%20for%20draft-ietf-httpbis-cice%20(Client-Initiated%20Content-Encoding)&In-Reply-To=%3CD56ECDCB-70C6-4786-9C89-2862C1FFDED4%40mnot.net%3E&References=%3CD56ECDCB-70C6-4786-9C89-2862C1FFDED4%40mnot.net%3E>

We haven't seen too much discussion on this draft after we adopted.
Working on the theory that this is because it's uncontroversial and
straightforward, I'm making a Working Group Last Call to solicit any
further issues, comment or support.

<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cice>

Please have a read through and bring any substantial issues up
on-list. Editorial issues can go straight to github:
  https://github.com/httpwg/http-extensions/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue+label%3Acice

If you support publication of the draft (whether or not you find
issues), that would be useful to know.

WGLC will end on 2015-06-22.

Regards,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2017 12:47:27 +0200

> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-httpbis-cice>

Actually: RFC 7694 (https://www.greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc7694.html)

> I am planning to start to advise A-E with 415 responses.

Awesome!

> 1. Does CICE alone address the concern to support/enable request 

That was the intent of the spec.

> compression will be very high over Internet, esp. if the server 
> end-point is managed by the content author. Any suggestion otherwise?

We've been using gzip-encoded request bodies for ages in WebDAV - just 
not in browsers.

> 3. Any known deployment of gzip/brotli compression in browsers?

Might be of interest: 
<https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1221461> (cc: Patrick :-).

Best regards, Julian