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

Re: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:01:02 +1300
Message-ID: <4F1E653E.7000207@treenet.co.nz>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On 24/01/2012 7:43 p.m., Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 02:55:46PM +1100, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> (...)
>> This mailing list is the best approximation of the HTTP community; it has
>> participation (or at least presence) from most implementations, including
>> browsers, servers, intermediaries, CDNs, libraries, tools, etc. I firmly
>> believe that as HTTP evolves, it needs to accommodate the entire community,
>> not just the selected needs of a subset, so rather than creating a new WG or
>> having a private collaboration, it should happen here.
> Indeed. And I'll be particularly vigilant on the ability to build gateways
> because I've already got several requests to implement SPDY into haproxy,
> so once HTTP/2.0 (or whatever we call it) is out, I'm sure I won't be able
> to resist to users' pressure. Anyway I'm more than happy to see this move
> forwards.
>
> I think that starting from existing HTTP spec limitations and issues is
> a safer way to bring something on the table in a reasonable delay than
> starting with a big brainstorming about how we can revolutionize the
> internet. One more reason to keep focused on current version's remaining
> issues till the last minute ;-)

Yes, I was just thinking that.

IMHO item 1 on the agenda should be enumerating the problems we know of 
with HTTP/1.1 that need to be solved. To figure out if the SPDY proposal 
is a good step forward, overkill, or just a framing syntax change. And 
what alternatives or hybrid combinations might work better than either.

AYJ
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 08:01:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:53 GMT