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

Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ?

From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 14:22:01 +0200
Message-ID: <4F6F0DE9.9080307@gmx.de>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
CC: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On 2012-03-25 14:14, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 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 ?

I believe the answer is: we don't know yet.

>> 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 ?

It's not, and if a line in my SPDY feedback upset you, I apologize.

I believe that SPDY contains good parts that are already tested, and we 
should learn from them. But there are lots of other things we may want 
to fix/change in HTTP/2.0, and which SPDY doesn't address at all.

I also believe that it's good to have a proper spec for SPDY, no matter 
whether it becomes part of a future HTTP spec or not.

> ...

Best regards, Julian
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 12:22:34 GMT

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