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

Re: Make HTTP 2.0 message/transport format agnostic

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:09:01 +0200
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <4F3F23E8-388D-4FC8-A4EF-C73811A073B9@mnot.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

On 31/03/2012, at 12:06 PM, Willy Tarreau wrote:

> Hi Mark,
> 
> just one question to clarify one point below :
> 
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 11:53:08AM +0200, Mark Nottingham wrote:
>> Some people seem to be arguing for multiple serialisations of HTTP from the
>> start. Since the value of a standard is largely in interop and market forces,
>> I'd strongly suggest that we not assume this until we have proven and agreed
>> to it being necessary. 
>> 
>> I.e., just because SPDY (or S+M, or any other proposal) isn't good as-is
>> right now does not automatically mean that we need two (or more)
>> serialisations. We need to discuss our requirements and the proposals that
>> emerge, so we can choose an appropriate path forward forward. If we end up in
>> a corner where we can't serve all of our requirements from one, *then* we can
>> open this box.
> 
> When you say "serialization", you seem to imply the on-wire format, while
> for me (and possibly for others) serialization is what the stream looks
> like. Right now HTTP/1.1 is serialized over multiple streaming protocols
> (TCPv4/v6, SSL/TLS over these ones, unix sockets), with the {clear,SSL/TLS}
> over TCP* combinations being more common than anything else and the standard
> ones. Could you please clarify this point so that there is no ambiguity ?


I'm just contorting language to avoid using the term "binding." "On-wire format" is more verbose, but clear; I'll try to use it from here.

Cheers,


--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 10:09:24 GMT

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