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

Re: HTTbis spec size, was: Rechartering HTTPbis

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 21:26:39 +0100
To: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
Cc: Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120206202639.GF18059@1wt.eu>
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:17:15AM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> 2012/2/6 Henrik Nordström <henrik@henriknordstrom.net>:
> > lör 2012-01-28 klockan 11:50 +0100 skrev Julian Reschke:
> >
> >> I *agree* with improving the layering, and maybe giving the transport
> >> layer a specific name, but "HTTP/2.0" it can't be.
> >
> > My vision of HTTP/2.0 is
> ..
> > I do not see a great need for a new semantic model. But several things
> > that need to change on the wire to provide a robust & efficient protocol
> > that can be built upon for the next several decades.
> 
> FWIW - this is pretty much exactly what I'd like to see as well, both
> wearing my squid hat, and my 'runs a complex web environment with
> stacked accelerators, caches, heterogeneous appservers etc' hat on.

I too agree on this. In my opinion, what made HTTP succeed so well is
that there are places for any sort of new component that can fit a given
application's usage. Almost everything can be inserted between two ends
to extend features, performance, security, filtering, etc...

We clearly need some polishing on the semantics to avoid interoperability
issues we have all been facing from time to time, but I think the model
is fine.

Willy
Received on Monday, 6 February 2012 20:27:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:54 GMT