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

Re: SPDY Header Frames

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:48:19 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwgmNAoy_6xZjsCL+mtAjfUtWRdjwKCMN_s0i4xD+nUdUg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roberto Peon <grmocg@gmail.com>
Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Could I just point out that when you have a problem with an almost
infinite scope for minor variations, having a strawman on the table is
an essential pre-condition for success?

SPDY is not the first attempt to do multiplexing. Jim Gettys and
Henryk Nielsen worked on a similar scheme in '95. Before that Simon
Spero developed HTTP-NG. What is different this time round is that
there is at least one 500 pound gorilla who wants the banana.

Anyone can bikeshed the names, semantics of new headers. What really
interests me is questions such as:

* How will the new proposal be layered onto the Transport and
Application layers?
* Will the new scheme take advantage of multicast?
* What security will be provided?
* How robust will the new scheme be?

There are design issues in SPDY that I find a little troubling. I much
prefer using a compact encoding for headers over compression. A
compact encoding is easier to implement and much easier to debug. It
is also more robust as single bit errors are less likely to lead to
catastrophe.
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2012 13:48:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 July 2012 13:48:53 GMT