- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 21:31:20 +0100
- To: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>
- Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Hi Henrik, On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 09:05:02PM +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote: > tis 2012-01-24 klockan 09:48 +0100 skrev Willy Tarreau: > > > Maybe HTTP/2.0 could be designed to take advantage of SCTP. > > Heck, even HTTP/1.1 as-is can take advantage of SCTP, and with very > little transport change/mapping it can utilize it very well for framing > as well getting rid of many transport & framing issues of HTTP/1.1. Possibly, I don't know in fact. > > HTTP/1.1 has a number of issues that make the current spec very > > heavy and implementations complex (eg: remember you can't fold > > set-cookie, the issues with multiple content-length, etc...). > > Taking the opportunity of a new version to clear a few of these > > old issues would be nice. > > But SPDY do not.. well sure it addresses the folding issue (there is no > folding in SPDY), but multiple content-length is still an issue. Less so > than in HTTP/1.1 as it's not transport related any more, but still. Which is why I'm talking about HTTP/2.0 instead of SPDY. SPDY is something which exists, HTTP/2.0 is something we must define. Maybe in the end both will be the same but I'm making a strong difference between "define" and "use" :-) [BTW I don't like the name "HTTP/2.0", it reminds me of the marketing term "Web 2.0", but that's just a detail] Regards, Willy
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 20:31:56 UTC