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

Re: HTTP 2.0/flag day

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:33:26 +0200
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <9A8FCDCC-5EC0-463B-85CC-6BFFA488AE68@mnot.net>
To: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
I tend to think that common use cases will be met, but but its nature, we'll not be able to meet *all* possible use cases.

E.g, some people out there might be using chunk-extensions, and I think it's uncontroversial that they'll disappear in 2.0 (especially since we've decided to deprecate them in 1.1).

Another example is Trailers (although they have some proponents).

The interesting discussion for me is whether we support use cases that are *possible*, but not yet proven. E.g., the discussion about P2P HTTP; it's interesting, but highly speculative. Personally, I'm inclined to avoid explicitly supporting these cases, although we shouldn't go out of our way to prohibit them.

Cheers,


On 26/03/2012, at 11:13 AM, Ted Hardie wrote:

> I'm seeing a bunch of messages that seem to be based on the assumption
> that after the creation of an HTTP 2.0 that all HTTP 1.x would
> disappear in the transition to HTTP 2.0.  I am not anticipating a flag
> day here, and I would guess that HTTP 1.1 would still be around for
> any use cases that do not need features of any 2.0 proposal.  Does
> that make sense to others, or do we have a design constraint that all
> use cases currently met by HTTP 1.X must also be met (with the same
> security and performance properties) by 2.0?
> 
> regards,
> 
> Ted Hardie
> 

--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 09:33:56 GMT

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