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: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 08:06:00 +0000
To: Brian Pane <brianp@brianp.net>
cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9611.1332749160@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAAbTgTvr2-AhNAneZ1-sTrik5ZZ5WRhr2QbnB4UbDSz4XqZfBg@mail.gmail.com>
, Brian Pane writes:

>>>Nonetheless, I think it would be reasonable for HTTP/2.0 to require SSL.
>>
>> I think you need to talk to some people with big websites ;-)
>
>In my day job, I work on L7 performance at a website with
>800 million users. Does that count? ;-)

Appearantly not ?

>Nowadays a single core of a commodity CPU can do
>thousands of 1024-bit RSA operations per second or
>well over a Gb/s of RC4 or AES encryption.

But what if people had other plans for their CPU cycles ?

A lot of people just want their content delivered cheaply and fastly,
and if you try to push SSL on them, they'll not use your 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 Monday, 26 March 2012 08:06:27 GMT

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