W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: multiplexing -- don't do it

From: Patrick McManus <pmcmanus@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2012 09:13:28 -0400
To: William Chan (陈智昌) <willchan@chromium.org>
Cc: Peter L <bizzbyster@gmail.com>, Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1333631608.2072.13.camel@ds9>
On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 10:25 +0200, William Chan (陈智昌) wrote:

>  stack. The real solution is to fix the transport (new UDP-based
> protocol anyone?), but that's beyond the scope of this work.

Although I agree a udp based proposal is unlikely to bear fruit, I don't
see that it is a priori beyond the scope of the HTTP/2 work. I think our
charter asks for proposals that reduce TCP connection count - that would
certainly qualify :) WebRTC is doing something kind of similar with
sctp/dtls/udp layering, right?

There are a huge amount of unknowns there, which is a terrific argument
for rallying around spdy because it is well experimented with already
and is known to solve some hard problems. But if someone were to invest
in a prototype, a spec, and some test results of a udp system I would
find that a much more interesting thing to consider than another
proposal for some variation of spdy-lite.

My weak understanding of dtls is that it has the potential to save
another rtt over the tcp version :)

-Patrick
Received on Thursday, 5 April 2012 13:14:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:59 GMT