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

Re: Adjusting our spec names

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:26:17 +0200
Cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, "<ietf-http-wg@w3.org> Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <A90E6D81-FA41-4316-8650-5CB16158AE76@mnot.net>
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>

On 31/03/2012, at 1:17 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

> Can I ask a really fundamental question:
> How long do we expect HTTP/2.0 to last ?
> It sounds a lot to me like people are busy trying to solve the last
> remaining problems with yesterdays HTTP/1.1, rather than trying to
> build a solid foundation for the next 10-ish years of HTTP.
> If you look at what various labs are churning out of wired/optical/wireless
> technologies, five years from now, we'll be talking a quite different
> environment than now, with respect to bandwidth, RTT and spikiness.
> 10 years from now, something big will happen, and the big news-sites
> will be expected to deliver 1Tbit/sec sustained while everybody and
> his goat follows the news in real time.  Ask cnn.com what 9/11 felt
> like, and move it up three orders of magnitude or more.
> None of the proposals we have seen so far is anywhere near being
> feasible in such a context.
> We simply have to do something about stuff like the convoluted and
> expensive generation and parsing of Date: headers.

PHK - 

Great. A specific problem is best; general hand-wringing about "how long will this last" is less useful.

We can discuss the problem of date generation/parsing. In a 2.0-only chain, it would indeed be nice if we could dispense with this altogether (e.g., with a separate set of headers to replace date/last-modified/expires that get transformed to them on a 1.x hop only). Let's discuss that.


Mark Nottingham
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2012 11:26:41 UTC

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