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

Re: SPDY Header Frames

From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 21:22:15 +0200
To: "HAYASHI, Tatsuya" <lef.mutualauth@gmail.com>
Cc: ietf-http-wg@w3.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120714192215.GT16256@1wt.eu>
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 03:56:11AM +0900, HAYASHI, Tatsuya wrote:
> 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?

I'm not sure what you mean.

> (Of course, compatibility is absolutely required.)

Yes it is, but not necessarily on the wire.

> Or is something added on HTTP1?

We're not adding on top of HTTP1 but redesigning the on-wire protocol
which is why it will not be called 1.x.

Regards,
Willy
Received on Saturday, 14 July 2012 19:22:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 14 July 2012 19:22:48 GMT