source: wg_materials/ietf90/ietf-90-httpbis-cice.xhtml @ 2730

Last change on this file since 2730 was 2729, checked in by julian.reschke@…, 9 years ago

update presentations
  • Property svn:executable set to *
File size: 2.5 KB
Line 
1<!DOCTYPE html
2  PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
3<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
4  <head>
5    <title>IETF 90 - Client-Initiated Content-Encoding</title>
6    <style type="text/css">
7body {
8  color: black;
9  font-family: cambria, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
10  font-size: 18pt;
11}
12h1 {
13  font-size: 36pt;
14}
15li {
16  margin-top: 0.5em;
17}
18q {
19  font-style: italic; 
20}
21.break {
22  page-break-before: always;
23}
24@page {
25  size: a4 landscape;
26}
27@page {
28  @bottom-left {
29       content: "Julian Reschke, greenbytes";
30  }
31  @bottom-right {
32       content: counter(page);
33  }
34  @top-center {
35       content: "IETF 90 - Client-Initiated Content-Encoding";
36  }
37}
38    </style>
39  </head>
40  <body>
41    <h1>IETF 90 - Client-Initiated Content-Encoding</h1>
42    <p>
43      <a href="mailto:julian.reschke@greenbytes.de">Julian Reschke</a>, greenbytes
44    </p>
45
46    <h2 class="break">What problem does it solve?</h2>
47    <p>
48      HTTP/1.1 clients already can use content codings such as "gzip" in requests, but
49      if a server doesn't play along, it's hard to understand what went wrong.
50    </p>
51    <p>
52      Status code 415 (Unsupported Media Type) can already be used, but
53      the recipient wouldn't know whether the problem was caused by the
54      media type or the content coding, and also would need information
55      about what content codings <em>are</em> supported.
56    </p>
57
58    <h2>Proposed Solution</h2>
59    <p>
60      Extend "Accept-Encoding" header field to be usable in responses as well.
61      When sent in a 415 response, it would indicate which content codings
62      are supported.
63    </p>
64    <p>
65      See <a href="http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-reschke-http-cice-01.html">draft-reschke-http-cice-01</a>.
66    </p>
67    <p>
68      This is a really a tiny, backwards compatible extension to RFC 7231;
69      it might have been part of it if we had thought of it in time.
70    </p>
71
72    <h2 class="break">To Be Discussed</h2>
73    <p>
74      Also define use in OPTIONS response? Trouble is it might vary
75      be request method.
76    </p>
77    <p>
78      Content codings can be seen as ugly workaround for transfer codings
79      not implemented in practice. Should we try harder to fix <em>that</em>
80      problem?
81    </p>
82    <p>
83      Working Group draft?
84    </p>
85    <p>
86      Once it's a Proposed Standard, it'll be a candidate for inclusion into RFC7231bis.
87    </p>
88  </body>
89</html>
Note: See TracBrowser for help on using the repository browser.