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 12:39:17 +0000
To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
cc: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <79056.1332679157@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <4F6F0DE9.9080307@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:
>On 2012-03-25 14:14, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>> 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.

So shouldn't we find out, so that people know what they are
aiming for with their I-D's ?

I personally have a hard time seeing how we can ever bend the world
to come to a conclusion that HTTP/2.0 will be single-protocol, given
the HTTP/1.1 interop issue, but I am willing to be educated, if
somebody has good arguments for that position.

On the other hand, if nobody is going to argue for that HTTP/2.0
should be single-protocol, then multi-protocol seems like a foregone
conclusion, which we should minute and take into account.

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

Not at all, it was just yet another instance of pussyfooting around
this question, rather than get the answer nailed down so we know
what we're trying to build here.

>I believe that SPDY contains good parts [...]

I agree, SPDY has some very desirable features for certain use-cases,
and I would hate to see a HTTP/2.0 that didn't allow for something
like SPDY to be used.

>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.

Again, I agree, and I belive that it would be easier to do a good
job, if you know if SPDY will be THE protocol or just A protocol.

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 12:39:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 11:11:01 UTC