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

Re: The HTTP vs SPDY debate

From: Mike Belshe <mike@belshe.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 00:32:04 +0200
Message-ID: <CABaLYCtcHb9qG2TF9scNAKY0Nst_nUuF-4wfPbdC6Udc6a8q_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:

> Hi Mike,
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 03:15:12PM +0200, Mike Belshe wrote:
> > You're welcome to ask the browser implementors, but a new protocol
> > namespace is really a non-starter.  We can't kick protocol versioning out
> > to the users for sorting out.
> >
> > From a protocol specification perspective, SPDY does not mandate SSL.
> >
> > From a browser perspective, I don't think the browsers are going to be
> keen
> > on having multiple, experimental HTTP/2.0 or SPDY specs implemented
> > concurrently.  It's just a coding mess.
> This is exactly what they've been doing and both Chrome and Mozilla have
> SPDY right now. I'm not talking about having *multiple* experimental specs,
> just one stable standard and one experimental from which the next standard
> will be built. This is exactly what is happening right now, and you know
> too
> well that it will not stop here !

I'm pretty familiar with what the browsers do, and they don't do this :-)
 So I must be misunderstanding what you mean.

If you're talking about how a feature goes from dev channel to beta channel
to release channel in chrome,  thats true.  But its not used the way I
thought you were asking it to be used - features don't stay locked at one
level - they either get rolled into the next version (which is ~3 weeks
apart!) or they get kicked out.  In other words, all features are always on
path to get shipped within ~10weeks.


> > So we probably have to pick just one implementation per piece of
> software.
> >  As for what people implement, they should try the variants they think
> make
> > sense, and then come back to the group with information about what they
> > learned.
> Agreed.
> Cheers,
> Willy
Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 22:32:33 UTC

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