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

Re: Re[2]: Moving forward with HTTP/2.0: proposed charter

From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:56:58 +0000
To: Robert Collins <robertc@squid-cache.org>
cc: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>, Adrien de Croy <adrien@qbik.com>, James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "ietf-http-wg@w3.org Group" <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <68444.1344243418@critter.freebsd.dk>
In message <CAJ3HoZ05gRkZz_i-=WieFuTF-_hhK5L9oi5FRh27uQ-ywg+4OQ@mail.gmail.com>
, Robert Collins writes:
>On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 8:45 PM, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

>> But is 1.1 vs. 2.0 proxy really going to make that much of a difference ?
>
>Yes, absolutely.
>
>The key bits are:
> - Fix HoL blocking
> - Only require one TCP connection

So how does that work for protected content ?

Is this assuming per-message protection (at least when you talk to
a proxy) or does these advantages only extend to unprotected content ?

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 08:57:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 August 2012 08:57:32 GMT