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

Re: SPDY Header Frames

From: HAYASHI, Tatsuya <lef.mutualauth@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 03:56:11 +0900
Message-ID: <CAGipQFmpX5v_NmcaLqEF6R--g8rj=Qyib2Q-jm=LmmU5ijDtGw@mail.gmail.com>
To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Response inline.

On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 11:01:15PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <20120713225104.GK16256@1wt.eu>, Willy Tarreau writes:
>>
>> >Whatever will be retained as a basis for HTTP/2.0, this exercise is
>> >useful and may incite other users to provide very valuable feedback.
>>
>> I think it is premature, because it obscures and prevents the much
>> needed high-level design of HTTP/2.0.
>>
>> And that is exactly why I think the current approach and timeline
>> is a road to nowhere fast.
>
> On a personal taste, I find it fast too. 4 months to provide proposals
> to replace the 15-year old HTTP/1, and 4 others to review them is short
> in my opinion. Roy did not even have the time to publish the Waka spec
> which could have brought a lot of fuel to the discussion !

+1.
I think that it is an important point.
Should we make what is replaced with HTTP1?
(Of course, compatibility is absolutely required.)
Or is something added on HTTP1?

It may be the same.
However, the goal may change.

--
HAYASHI, Tatsuya
Lepidum Co. Ltd.
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 18:56:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 July 2012 18:56:44 GMT