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

Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ?

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 12:14:14 +0000
To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <88774.1332677654@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAC4RtVDOR-hxYOwrRD6nt6tB9nkAfR=ejZppHWsXJTqWm61Q6A@mail.gmail.com>
, Barry Leiba writes:

>>>If we see SPDY as a transport layer only yes; if we consider it
>>>HTTP/2.0; maybe not.
>>
>>        1. HTTP/1.1 already has two different widely used transport
>>           protocols: HTTP and HTTPS
>
>HTTP and HTTPS are NOT transport protocols.

For all I care, you can call them "transport", "session" or even
"presentation" protocols if that makes you feel better.

But this semantic outrage does not answer my very simple
question: Will HTTP/2.0 support only one or will it support
multiple protocols ?

>And as PSA said, this is all for the HTTP 2.0 discussion to have, along
>with I-Ds to use as discussion points.

And just why should people spend time on I-D's, when it for all
intents and purposes looks like httpbis is now chartered to goldplate
SPDY as HTTP/2.0 ?

If you really want I-D's to discuss, the very least you could do is
to make it clear to people that they are not wasting their time writing
them.

As long as this "Ohh nothing has been decided yet, but look at that
SPDY, ain't it shiny ?" charade is going on, nobody in a sane state
of mind is going to waste their time on an I-D with no future.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 12:14:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:57 GMT