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

Re: SPDY Header Frames

From: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 17:52:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CABP7RbcdA04SJipSQ9iCoV61b73apXHJaLPW3AReiVzaoxO9tA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, ietf-http-wg@w3.org
On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Amos Jeffries <squid3@treenet.co.nz> wrote:

> On 15/07/2012 7:07 p.m., Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
>> In message <50026533.9060502@treenet.co.**nz<50026533.9060502@treenet.co.nz>>,
>> Amos Jeffries writes:
>>
>>  Hopefully the result will be a BIG change towards simplicity. But only
>>> time will tell about that.
>>>
>> I don't see any signs of that anywhere, care to elaborate what you
>> base your hope on ?
>>
>>
> "Hope is hope. If we had reasons, it'd be called surety" - Anonymous.
>
> We have the opportunity for reducing the HTTPbis specs into one spec which
> describeds the framing for HTTP/2 and flor controls. Leaving the rest of
> the protocol features out as separate optional extensions. There is hope,
> slim maybe, but hope.
>
>
While "leaving the rest ... out as separate optional extensions" sounds
great if you're in the business of providing the fundamental architecture,
it's not so great if you're building applications on top that rely on those
"optional" pieces. Simplification is a great thing, but HTTP/2 can't be
ONLY about the framing... it must also address very real issues that exist
elsewhere in the specification.

- James


> AYJ
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 16 July 2012 00:53:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 16 July 2012 00:53:32 GMT