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

Re: SPDY = HTTP/2.0 or not ?

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2012 15:50:47 +0200
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>, "William Chan (?????????)" <willchan@chromium.org>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20120325135047.GB8408@1wt.eu>
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 01:20:21PM +0200, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> <hat type='AD'/>
> 
> On 3/25/12 12:59 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> > In message <4F6E5D90.9050904@gmx.de>, Julian Reschke writes:
> > 
> >>> Since it's possible to layer different (future) versions of HTTP on top
> >>> of SPDY, don't we need the ":version" header to preserve all
> >>> information? And similarly, we can conceivably handle different schemes
> >>> over SPDY, such as https (the obvious one), http, ws, wss, etc, so I
> >>> think including ":scheme" is important.
> >>
> >> If we see SPDY as a transport layer only yes; if we consider it 
> >> HTTP/2.0; maybe not.
> > 
> > Ok, can we just settle this once and for all ?
> 
> That's the point of the recent recharter to the HTTPBIS WG:
> 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/
> 
> Specifically, if people have proposals, encourage them to write
> Internet-Drafts. :)

Amos and I are currently working on such a proposal. Poul-Henning,
feel free to join if you'd like.

Cheers,
Willy
Received on Sunday, 25 March 2012 13:51:28 GMT

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